RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00019
            INDEX CODE:  100.03, 126.04
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  7 JULY 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of  Military
Justice (UCMJ) be expunged from her records; she be awarded  the  Air  Force
Good  Conduct  Medal  (AFGCM);  and  her   discharge   be   changed   to   a
medical/retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Article 15 was invalid because the reasons were  untrue.   She  did  not
fail to go and she was not allowed the benefit of legal counsel  during  the
Article 15 process. Meanwhile, she has  no  reputation  of  neglect  of  any
duties whatsoever.  The denial of the AFGCM was based  on  the  issuance  of
the Article 15.   She  contracted  post  traumatic  stress  disorder  (PTSD)
symptoms three months prior to discharge and was not given enough  time  for
medical referral to a PEB for a medical discharge.

In support of her application, applicant provided a  personal  statement,  a
copy of DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from  Active  Duty,
documents  associated  with  her  Article  15  proceedings,  Department   of
Veterans Affairs (DVA) Rating Decision, character references, and a copy  of
her Bachelor of Arts certificate from University of Arizona.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on
28 July 1988.  She  was  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  senior
airman, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of  rank  of  11
October 1991.

The first evidence of involvement with  weight  management  in  the  service
medical records is an October 24, 1989 entry that states she was  previously
2 pounds over the maximum allowable weight of 159 lbs but on that  date  had
lost weight to fall under that limit at 157 3/4 lbs.  On  November  6,  1989
she was seen for nutritional counseling at which time  her  weight  was  156
pounds. By an    April 25,  1990  nutritional  clinic  quarterly  counseling
session, her weight was documented at 167 pounds (8 over the maximum of  159
pounds). By November 1990 she had again lost weight  to  162  pounds  and  a
January 16, 1991 medical record entry recorded her weight as 160 pounds.  In
February 1991  she  received  non-judicial  punishment  for  failure  to  go
(apparently to mandatory physical training). At an April 10, 1991  nutrition
clinic appointment she weighed in at her maximum  allowable  weight  of  159
pounds. However by September 1991 she again exceeded her  maximum  allowable
weight by 6 pounds and continued to gain weight with a  recorded  weight  of
177 pounds at a February 24, 1992 clinic visit. In April 1992 she  was  non-
selected under the selective reenlistment program due to  weight  management
issues.

On July 10, 1992 the  applicant  presented  to  the  clinic  with  emotional
distress and inability to sleep due to nightmares since a sexual assault  on
June  6,  1992.  Mental  health  evaluation  dated  July  13,   1992   noted
"rekindling of prior abusive relationships, one of  which  resulted  in  her
terminating a pregnancy  at  age  18.  Feeling  this  issue  still  somewhat
unresolved" and concluded with probable  diagnosis  of  PTSD  and  initiated
therapy. Mental health entries indicate expected worsening of symptoms  that
results from discussing issues in therapy and antidepressant medication  was
prescribed to assist with disturbed sleep. Her  primary  care  physician  at
the time of  an  August  12,  1992  appointment  noted  imminent  separation
scheduled for September 16, 1992 and  indicated  plans  to  discuss  whether
Medical Evaluation Board  (MEB)  was  indicated  prior  to  separation  with
mental health providers. On August  19,  1992,  mental  health  clinic  note
documented continuing symptoms but that she had stopped her  medications  on
her own. The mental health provider documented a discussion  about  possible
MEB in light of imminent separation.

On 12 February 1991, applicant was notified by her commander of  his  intent
to impose punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ for failure to go  at  the
time prescribed to her appointed place  of  duty  at  Building  40006,  Base
Gymnasium on divers occasion between 4 and 6 February 1991.

On 19 February 1991, the applicant waived  her  right  to  demand  trail  by
court-martial and accepted nonjudicial punishment.  On  the  AF  Form  3070,
Record of Nonjudicial  Punishment  Proceedings,  she  marked  and  initialed
Block 5 stating,  "I  have  consulted  a  lawyer."  She  submitted  numerous
character references. On        25 February 1991, her  commander  determined
the applicant committed the offense alleged, and imposed  punishment  of  30
days correctional  custody.  The  applicant  appealed  the  punishment.  The
appeal authority partially granted her request mitigating the punishment  to
21 days correctional custody and 9 days of extra duty.

On 30  March  1992,  applicant's  supervisor  prepared  an  AF  Fm  418  and
recommended that she be selected for reenlistment.  On  7  April  1992,  her
commander nonconcurred with the recommendation and rendered  her  ineligible
for reenlistment. The specific reasons for his  action  were  that  she  had
received  numerous  letters  of  reprimand  and  counselings  regarding  her
failure to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  Air  Force  weight  management
program.

On 16 September 1992,  applicant  was  separated  from  the  Air  Force  for
completion of required service  with  service  characterized  as  honorable.
She was issued and RE code of "2X."  She completed 4 years, 1 month, and  18
days of total active military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial and states a set aside should only  be  granted
when the evidence demonstrates a material error or injustice. The  applicant
has failed to do  so.  The  applicant  contends  that  the  Article  15  was
invalid, based on untruths, that she was not  afforded  legal  counsel,  and
that she had no  reputation  of  neglect  of  duties  whatsoever.  Applicant
claims, while stationed in Germany, she had  complained  of  another  airman
arriving late at his duty station, intoxicated, following a unit  recreation
event, and carrying several bottles of beer. The airman  attempted  to  grab
and kiss her. She reported the incident and then, as the only female in  the
facility, began experiencing harassment. Soon after the  incident,  she  was
placed on a Weight Management Program being four ounces  over  the  maximum.
Because of the Persian Gulf conflict and low  manning  during  the  drawdown
era, the applicant claims her supervisor  excused  her  from  attending  the
fitness training (FIT) program that was at the base  gymnasium.  Her  shifts
ended at midnight and the FIT  program  required  attendance  at  0500.  She
stated she was allowed to check in at the fitness center desk  each  day  at
lunch for a certain period of time. The FIT program log  provided  with  the
applicant’s requests indicates she was in an authorized absence status  from
24 January through 3 February 1991, and then indicates X’s for 4  through  6
February 1991, which presumably means  unauthorized  absence.  There  is  no
record of whether or why her authorized absence ended.

AFLS/JAJM’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRP recommends denial and states the AFGCM is awarded  to  Air  Force
enlisted personnel for exemplary conduct while in active  military  service.
Individuals must demonstrate a positive attitude toward the  Air  Force  and
their jobs. Award of the AFGCM is based upon specific recommendation of  the
unit commander. Commander may deny the award in cases where an  individual’s
conduct has been less than exemplary.

AFPC/DPPPR’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the  records
is warranted. There is no error in not accomplishing an  MEB  prior  to  the
applicant’s separation because the applicant did not  consent  to  retention
on active duty for disability evaluation. The fact that the DVA has  granted
service  connected  disability  compensation  for  her   service   connected
condition does not establish a basis for  the  Air  Force  to  retroactively
grant a disability discharge.  The  fact  that  the  DVA  has  retroactively
raised her disability rating also does not establish an error  or  injustice
warranting correction of military records. Action and  disposition  in  this
case  are  proper  and  equitable  reflecting  compliance  with  Air   Force
directives that implement the law.

BCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  on  17
March 2006 for review and comment within 30 days.  As  of  this  date,  this
office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice.  We find no evidence of error in this  case
and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation provided in support of  her
appeal, we do not believe she has suffered an injustice.  In cases  of  this
nature, we are not inclined to disturb the judgments of commanding  officers
absent a strong showing of abuse of discretionary  authority.  The  evidence
of record indicates that during the processing of  the  Article  15  action,
the applicant was afforded every right to which  she  was  entitled,  waived
her right to demand  trial  by  court-martial,  and  submitted  matters  for
review  by  the  imposing  commander   and   appellate   authority.    After
considering the matters raised by the applicant,  the  commander  determined
that she  had  committed  the  offenses  alleged"  and  imposed  punishment.
Persuasive evidence has not been provided which would  lead  us  to  believe
that  the  imposing  commander  or  the  reviewing  authority  abused  their
discretionary authority, that her substantial rights  were  violated  during
the processing  of  the  Article  15  punishment,  or  that  the  punishment
exceeded the maximum authorized by the UCMJ.  In regard  to  the  Air  Force
Good Conduct Medal, it is awarded  to  those  enlisted  personnel  who,  for
three consecutive years, perform in an exemplary  manner.   The  applicant’s
commander felt the applicant, a recipient of an Article 15, did not  perform
in an exemplary fashion, and absent evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  cannot
find fault with the commander’s decision. Therefore, we agree with  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt  their  rationale  as  the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.

4.    With respect to changing her discharge to  a  medical/retirement,  the
Board took notice of the applicant's  complete  submission  in  judging  the
merits of this case.  However, evidence has not been provided  warranting  a
change in her administrative discharge to a  medical  discharge.  The  Board
notes her contentions and is of  the  opinion  that  the  detailed  comments
provided by the BCMR Medical Consultant accurately address  the  applicant’s
allegations.  Therefore, we are in agreement with BCMR Medical  Consultant’s
opinions and recommendation and adopt his rationale as  the  basis  for  our
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of either an error  or
an injustice.  In view of the above findings, we find no  basis  upon  which
to change the applicant’s discharge to a medical/retirement.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable 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-2005-
00019 in Executive Session on 18 April 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
      Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member
      Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 May 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 11 Apr 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR. dated 4 May 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 14 Mar 06.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Mar 06.





                                   JOHN B. HENNESSEY
                                   Panel Chair