SECOND ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02099
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx COUNSEL: None
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be reinstated to active duty in the Air Force, be given supplemental
promotion consideration to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-6),
and allowed to cross train into the Paralegal Air Force Specialty she was
approved for prior to her discharge.
She be paid all back pay and allowances from the time of her involuntary
separation.
If she is reinstated to active duty, she be given a join spouse assignment.
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 1 Apr 03, the AFBCMR considered a similar appeal from the applicant.
The Board changed the applicant’s RE code to “3K” to allow her to apply for
reenlistment in the Air Force (See Record of Proceedings at Exhibit M).
On 2 Jul 03, the Board reconsidered and again denied the applicant’s appeal
(See Addendum Record of Proceedings at Exhibit O).
In a letter dated 17 Jan 04, the applicant again requests reconsideration
of her case. She makes the following assertions:
A. She was involuntarily extended on active duty beyond her
expiration of term of service (ETS) in violation of AFI 36-3208, paragraph
2.8, Extension of Enlistment When Discharge for Cause is Pending.
B. Her commander substituted administrative discharge for
disciplinary action in violation of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.1.2.
C. Her commander did not consider her for reenlistment and
document it on AF Form 418, thereby denying her of an opportunity to appeal
his decision in violation of AFI 26-2606.
D. She still believes she was denied reenlistment because of a
sexual assault she suffered. She provides a copy of a police report that
documents the assault. She also submits a letter she indicates was written
to her by her commander stating that the circumstances surrounding her
assault would have dramatically decreased the moral [sic] of the squadron.
The applicant further discusses her views of her case and why, if
reinstated to active duty, she should be cross-trained into the paralegal
career field. She opines that the things that happened to her would not
have happened if the commander had followed proper procedures. She states
that the commander felt some remorse after her discharge or he would not
have drafted the letter to her. The applicant also references and
discusses a previous BCMR case similar to hers where the applicant was
granted relief.
Applicant’s submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit P.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After reviewing the most recent evidence provided by the applicant in
support of her appeal, the Board again finds it insufficient to
substantiate she has been the victim of an error or injustice warranting
the relief sought. The applicant indicates her commander violated AFI 36-
3208, paragraph 2.8 by involuntarily extending her enlistment when a
discharge for cause was pending. However, we note the applicant was
extended due to a pending investigation, which could have resulted in
disciplinary action. There is no evidence in the record that an
administrative discharge was initiated against her. Rather, she was
discharged because she was denied reenlistment. The issues raised by the
applicant regarding the procedures followed by the commander in denying her
reenlistment have been previously addressed and we have nothing further to
add. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence the applicant submits in
support of her contention that she was denied reenlistment because she had
been the victim of a sexual assault, we find insufficient evidence to
establish a nexus between these two events. We reviewed the letter, dated
10 Mar 00, the applicant contends was authored by her previous commander,
but given our reservations regarding its authenticity do not believe it
would be appropriate to use as the basis to grant or deny the requested
relief. Finally, after reviewing BCMR Case number 00-01271, referenced by
the applicant as having similarities to her case with relief granted by the
Board, we do not find anything in the rationale and actions of the Board in
that case which cause us to question the appropriateness of our decision in
this case. Therefore, we again, find no basis to grant the requested
relief.
_________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was
denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be
reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not
considered with this application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2002-02099
in Executive Session on 23 September 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
The following additional documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit O. Addendum Record of Proceedings, dated
9 Sep 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit P. Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Jan 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit Q. ROP, BC-2000-01271, undated.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02099
In a rebuttal to the Air Force evaluation, applicant now requests that she be reinstated to active duty in the Air Force, promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-6) and allowed to cross train into the Paralegal career field she was approved for prior to her discharge. The applicant’s complete statement is at Exhibit L. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPAE recommends that the applicant’s RE code be changed to “3K,”...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-03678-2
For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, and, the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit H. The applicant’s medical evaluation was completed at Wilford Hall Medical Center on 17 October 2002 and the results were forwarded to the Board for review (refer to Exhibit I). The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit J. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 16 December 2002.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02198
It appears that she is requesting administrative corrections be made to her medical records and discharge documents. She submitted a hardship letter requesting that she be assigned to a different location or separated so that she could later reenlist. The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 Feb 03 for review...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02099
She was discharged from the Air Force because she failed training and the Air Force would not reclassify her. Her commander initiated separation action on 11 Mar 2010, which gave her 178 days active duty at the time her separation action was initiated. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC- 2012-02099 in Executive Session on 20 Dec 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02134
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02134 INDEX CODE: 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her uncharacterized entry-level separation for fraudulent entry be changed to a medical discharge. Applicant states that she never needed the inhaler and did not suffer another attack until the present time. He affirms that...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02194
At the time of her separation she had been disqualified from Air Traffic Control duties and had been continued on active duty awaiting waivers and Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) processing. With regard to the presence of medical conditions that were potentially disqualifying for controller duties, the Medical Consultant states the fact that she decided to voluntarily separate under pregnancy provisions rather than remain on active duty and complete the planned evaluations and...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03027
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the evaluation prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant, which is attached at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the applicant’s name be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL), with a 50 percent disability rating, for anxiety disorder, under Veterans Administrative Schedule for Rating Disabilities...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00930
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00930 INDEX CODE: 110.02 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that would allow her to reenlist. On 6 March 2003, the applicant was notified by her commander that he was recommending that she be...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02937
Available Department of Veterans Administration (DVA) medical documentation shows that in 1999 she still reported symptoms of the conditions for which she was disability discharged. The documentation provided is insufficient to show that the applicant is now fit for active duty. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the BCMR Medical Consultant and the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01135
Counsel states that the applicant was not separated because of a pre-existing condition, which was aggravated by active duty service. The majority of the Board believes that the BCMR Medical Consultant’s findings provide a reasonable basis to conclude that the injury to the applicant’s elbow while on active duty was a new and distinct injury rather than EPTS. Given that the applicant disclosed her previous elbow injury during her enlistment physical and was given a waiver, the majority of...