Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2002-03280A
Original file (BC-2002-03280A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            ADDENDUM TO
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03280
            INDEX CODE:  A68.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  16 Oct 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her bad conduct discharge be upgraded or removed.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On  10  Jun  03,  the  Board  considered  and  denied  an  application
pertaining to the applicant, in  which  she  requested  that  her  bad
conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable.  A complete copy  of
the Record of Proceedings, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit H.


By letter, dated 1 Mar 05, the applicant requests  reconsideration  of
her request to have her BCD upgraded, alleging she  was  not  mentally
responsible for her actions, and  that  her  medical  status  was  not
properly evaluated.  By letters, dated 7 Apr 05, and  10 Aug  05,  she
provided additional documentation for the Board’s consideration.

Applicant’s complete submissions, with attachments, are at Exhibits I,
J, and K.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant recommended denial indicating that the evidence
of record shows the applicant’s mental health provider  of  two  years
provided testimony during her general  court-martial.   There  was  no
evidence submitted that shows the mental health provider testified  or
concluded that her condition or its treatment rendered her  unable  to
know right from wrong, or conform her behavior to the right, or to  be
able to provide a statement at the time of interview by the OSI.   The
tragic loss of her baby in Aug 87 occurred over one  year  before  the
withdrawals  from  the  bank  and  her   psychiatric   hospitalization
following  that  loss  also  occurred  one  year  prior  to  the  bank
withdrawals leading to her court-martial.   The  applicant  was  under
care  of  mental  health  providers  during  the  time  she  made  the
withdrawals but there was no  indication  of  mental  impairment  that
rendered her not legally responsible for her behavior.  In the Medical
Consultant’s view, the action and disposition in this case were proper
and equitable reflecting compliance  with  Air  Force  directive  that
implement the law, and that no change in the records is warranted.

A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is  at  Exhibit
L.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the  advisory  opinion  and  furnished  a  detailed
response and additional documentary evidence, which  are  attached  at
Exhibit N.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

In an earlier finding,  we  determined  that  there  was  insufficient
evidence to warrant any corrective action  regarding  the  applicant’s
request for  upgrade  of  her  BCD  to  honorable.   Her  most  recent
submissions were thoroughly reviewed and  her  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we did not find her  assertions  and  her  supporting
documentation  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the   rationale
proffered by  the  Medical  Consultant.   Again,  in  the  absence  of
sufficient evidence the applicant’s BCD was improper,  we  agree  with
the recommendation of the Medical Consultant and adopt  his  rationale
as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain
her burden of establishing she has suffered  either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  Accordingly, the  applicant’s  request  is  not  favorably
considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

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 AFBCMR  Docket  BC-2002-
03280 in Executive Session on 16 Dec 05, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
      Mr. Christopher D. Carey, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit H.  Record of Proceedings, dated 1 Mar 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit I.  Ltr, applicant, dated 1 Mar 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit J.  Ltr, applicant, dated 7 Apr 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit K.  Ltr, applicant, dated 10 Aug 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit L.  Ltr, Medical Consultant, dated 4 Oct 05.
    Exhibit M.  Ltr, AFBCMR, dated 7 Oct 05.
    Exhibit N.  Ltr, applicant, dated 13 Oct 05, w/atchs.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03659

    Original file (BC-2005-03659.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. The law provides benefits if an individual separates with less than a full term of service for hardship, service-connected disability, disability existing prior to entering active duty, physical or mental condition that interferes with duty, or reduction in force. Airmen are given entry-level separation uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01152

    Original file (BC-2005-01152.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant was discharged on 8 Sep 03 for “Personality Disorder.” Additional facts relevant to this case are contained in the evaluation prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant found at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the narrative reason for the applicant’s discharge be changed to Secretarial Authority. The narrative reason for discharge on the applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03418

    Original file (BC-2004-03418.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03418 INDEX CODE 106.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 7 May 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her 2003 Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded. On 8 Oct 03, the applicant was separated in the grade of airman basic with a BCD after three years, five months and five days of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03035

    Original file (BC-2003-03035.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03035 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason for separation on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed from “Personality Disorder” to “Medical...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03238

    Original file (BC-2004-03238.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03238 INDEX CODE: A62.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 Apr 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The character of her service be upgraded to honorable by reason of a pre-existing medical condition. Erroneous enlistment is one that would not have occurred had the relevant facts been...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04303

    Original file (BC-2003-04303.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The initial action, taken by the Air Force, in disqualifying her from the scholarship program required her to drop out of medical school and resign her commission. On 19 November 1999, the applicant’s 30 August 1999 resignation was accepted by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC). It was only after she informed the Air Force of her decision to drop out of medical school that she was told she could not be discharged for depression and that the information and guidance...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02678

    Original file (BC-2004-02678.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 7 Mar 03, she was placed on a deferment due to a medical condition; as a result, the Feb 03 weight was excused. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant asserts the medical deferment expired in Jun 03 without a firm diagnosis being given. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Dec 04.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02440

    Original file (BC-2004-02440.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    She was diagnosed with Paranoid Personality Disorder and was referred to Keesler AFB for a complete mental health evaluation and possible MEB. The remaining pertinent medical facts are contained in the evaluation prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant indicates a review of the available documentation both in the service medical record and from that given by the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01146

    Original file (BC-2008-01146.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    She followed the guidelines and submitted her request to withdraw her request 88 days before the date-of- separation (DOS). The Air Force failed to properly process her request to withdraw her voluntary request to separate. The applicant’s counsel states the applicant’s request for withdrawal was not properly processed and since her request for separation was voluntary, she had the right to withdraw her request for separation.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2003-00308-2

    Original file (BC-2003-00308-2.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 6 Aug 03, the Board considered, and by a majority vote, denied a similar appeal submitted by the applicant. In the absence of official documentation showing she was diagnosed with scoliosis while serving on active duty we find no error in this case and are not persuaded by her contentions that she has been the victim of an injustice. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Aug 03, w/atchs.