RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01726
INDEX CODE: 100.00
XXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 22 November 2006
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. Her records be corrected to show that she was medically discharged on
3 August 1978.
2. She receive compensation, i.e., back pay and equitable relief, as a
result of the Board’s 1981 upgrade of her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE)
Code and the sexual harassment she endured while on active duty.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She should have been medically discharged for major depression and she was
unfairly discharged due to sexual harassment. In March 1974, after
returning from a Delayed Entry Program (DEP) activity, she was drugged and
raped by her recruiter. From 1974 to 1978, she was forced to endure the
sexual advances of a noncommissioned officer (NCO) until she was
transferred from the unit. When she complained to her commander, she was
cross-trained as a diet therapist and was groped by her supervisor in 1979.
She received an “early out” because she could not take it anymore.
The incorrect RE Code, which was upgraded by the Board in 1981, has kept
her out of the military from 1978 to 1981. Further, she was never told at
the time her records were corrected that she was entitled to back pay and
equitable relief.
In support of her appeal, applicant submits her personal statement, a copy
of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from the Armed
Forces, and extracts from her Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) records.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 2 April 1974, applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve (AFRes) under
the DEP. She was honorably discharge from the AFRes on 16 April 1974, and
enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 17 April 1974, for a period of
six years. She was progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant,
effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 March 1976.
On 29 June 1978, the commander notified her that action had been initiated
to affect her discharge for apathy and defective attitude. The commander
indicated the following bases for the action:
a. On 7 and 23 June 1978, she failed to report for duty, for which
she received two failures to repair letters.
b. On or about 22 May 1978, she failed to go at the time
prescribed to her place of duty without authority, for which she received
an Article 15, with punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of
airman first class.
c. A Shift Leader statement documenting her failure to comply with
duty procedures.
d. A Memorandum for Record (MFR) from the Dormitory Monitor
documenting an incident that occurred at 0900 hours on 24 May 1978 in the
barracks.
e. A statement from an individual who was present at 0900 hours on
24 May 1978 during the barracks incident.
f. A statement by her roommate concerning an incident on 23 May
1978 that took place in their dormitory room.
g. An MFR from a Chief Master Sergeant concerning a telephone call
he received from the Base Housing Inspection Office and the appointment she
failed to meet.
h. A Quality Assurance Letters, dated 24 April and 22 May 1978,
recording counselings concerning her failures to attend Commanders Call.
i. A statement from a staff sergeant reporting her failure to
follow proper procedures.
j. A statement from a technical sergeant stating she failed to
follow proper procedures in preparing formulas.
k. A Quality Assurance Letter, dated 25 April 1978, recording
counseling concerning her conduct unbecoming a Noncommissioned Officer
(NCO) in that she had a verbal and physical conflict with a sergeant.
l. A Quality Assurance Letter, dated 5 April 1978, recording
initial counseling.
m. An AF Form 1137, Unfavorable Information File (UIF) Summary
showing three Letters of Reprimand (LORs) for financial irresponsibility -
31 March 1978, failure to report - 22 September 1977, and failure to
go/misconduct - 27 April 1977.
On 5 July 1978, she acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification and
after consulting with military counsel, submitted statements in her own
behalf.
From 11 through 14 July 1978, she was interviewed by an evaluation officer,
who, after reviewing the entire administrative discharge file, the
applicant’s personnel records, and all other related documents and papers,
found that she was unsuitable for further military service and recommended
she be given an honorable discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.
The discharge file was found legally sufficient and the discharge was
approved.
On 3 August 1978, she was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFM
39-12 (Unsuitability - Apathy - Defective Attitude). She completed four
years, three days, and 17 months of active service.
On 7 August 1980, upon the recommendation of the Air Force Personnel Board,
the Secretary of the Air Force found that she did serve satisfactorily in
the higher grade of sergeant within the meaning of Section 402(d), Title
38, United States Code.
In an application, dated 26 March 1981, she requested her RE code of RE-4
be upgraded so that she could enter the Navy Reserves. Upon the
recommendation of the Air Force Personnel Board, on 24 June 1981, the
Secretary of the Air Force approved her request to upgrade her RE code to
RE-1.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant if of the opinion that no change in the records
is warranted. The military Disability Evaluation System (DES) is
established to maintain a fit and vital force and can compensate for
unfitting conditions which render a member unable to perform their military
duties, and then only to the degree of severity at the time of separation.
Although the Air Force is required to rate disabilities in accordance with
the DVA Schedule for Rating Disabilities, the DVA operates under a totally
separate system with a different statutory basis. The DVA rates for any
and all service-connected conditions, to the degree they interfere with
future employability, without consideration of fitness. Whereas, the Air
Force rates a member's disability based on the degree of severity at the
time of separation. In the applicant’s case, her Air Force service medical
records indicate she was treated for a variety of minor medical problems
related to personal stressors, i.e., chronic symptoms of depressed mood,
anxiety and trouble sleeping, none of which interfered with the performance
of her military duties. Her service medical records also do not show any
medical or mental condition while on active duty that warranted her
evaluation through the DES. In addition, her service medical and personnel
records indicate no complaints or reports of sexual harassment or assault,
to include her written response to the administrative discharge action.
Following her separation from the Air Force, she was employed and did not
report any symptoms or medical concerns during 1982 and 1987 military
enlistment examinations. DVA rating decisions note no diagnosis of chronic
psychiatric disorder while on active duty in the Air Force and no diagnosis
of the disorder until the mid-1980’s. Further, the DVA has consistently
denied her claim for service-connection for chronic psychiatric condition,
including depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from in-
service sexual trauma. Regardless of the cause or specific diagnosis,
medical conditions that were not unfitting for continued military service
are not ratable or compensable under the military DES.
The BCMR Medical Consultants also notes that neither the Military Sexual
Trauma Counseling Act of 2004 (a DVA program) and the September 11 Victim
Compensation Fund are Department of Defense (DoD) programs and are not
within the purview of the AFBCMR.
The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 July
2006, for review and comment, within 30 days. However, as of this date, no
response has been received by this office.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. Although the applicant contends she
should have been medically discharged, she provides no documentary evidence
to support that she was unfit for continued military service at the time of
her discharge from the Air Force. Further, following her Air Force
separation, she served in the Army National Guard (ARNG) from 13 August
1981 through 2 September 1982; the Marine Reserves from 3 September 1982
through 2 September 1984; and again in the ARNG from 20 March 1987 through
11 January 1992. The BCMR Medical Consultant has thoroughly reviewed the
evidence of record and provided extensive comments regarding the medical
issues of this case, in which he ultimately opines that no change in the
records is warranted. In deference to the comments of the BCMR Medical
Consultant, which appear to be supported by the evidence of record, and
since the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to overcome the
presumption of fitness, we find no compelling basis to recommend favorable
consideration of her request. Furthermore, since the Military Sexual
Trauma Counseling Act of 2004 (a DVA program) and the September 11 Victim
Compensation Fund are Department of Defense (DoD) programs, her claim
request under these provisions is not within the purview of this Board.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to
our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing 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 Docket Number BC-2005-01726
in Executive Session on 22 August 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Robert H. Altman, Panel Chair
Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 May 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memo, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 7 Jul 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jul 06.
ROBERT H. ALTMAN
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00300
Although the mental health records are not available for review (only limited entries in the main service medical record), the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) narrative summary dated June 28, 2002 provides the most complete psychiatric summary available in the case file while she was on active duty. Had the Physical Evaluation Board concluded that service aggravated her condition, rating deductions for existing prior to service symptoms and for non-compensable personality...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02179
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02179 INDEX CODE: 108.01, 110.02, 131.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 JAN 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) with all back pay and allowances, and her 1989 discharge for pregnancy be changed to a medical discharge for multiple...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02370
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02370 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 31 November 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records be changed to show promotion to staff sergeant and a medical retirement. BCMR Medical Consultant's complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 02567
Since that time, she was seen at the clinic for alcohol abuse and a suicide attempt on 4 Oct 2002. However, the mental health professional who evaluated her determined that her primary diagnosis was Borderline Personality Disorder and that she had an S4T profile, secondary to her alcohol abuse and involvement in the ADAPT program. She suffers from depression, suicidal ideations, anger issues, and has a personality disorder, which began during her time in the military and has continued...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02567
Since that time, she was seen at the clinic for alcohol abuse and a suicide attempt on 4 Oct 2002. However, the mental health professional who evaluated her determined that her primary diagnosis was Borderline Personality Disorder and that she had an S4T profile, secondary to her alcohol abuse and involvement in the ADAPT program. She suffers from depression, suicidal ideations, anger issues, and has a personality disorder, which began during her time in the military and has continued...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03606
The specific reasons cited were her apathetic attitude toward her Air Force duties and responsibilities, her continued failure to report to her duty section on time, and her downward duty performance as evidenced by the following: a. She was not recommended for discharge for a medical condition. Exhibit C. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 4 Oct 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01766
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01766 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be medically retired due to severely exacerbated Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). An exacerbation, or acute behavioral flare-up of a mental condition, when under a given stressor, does not automatically incur or represent a permanent worsening of...
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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 00612
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicants request to be granted a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and removal of the personality disorder diagnosis. A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice that incurred when the applicant was administratively discharged from the...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01057
The Medical Consultant notes based on the provided evidence, the applicant was the victim of a sexual assault in Jul 09 and she requested and was granted a voluntary discharge from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, for Miscellaneous Reasons. The complete Clinical Psychology Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit F. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant notes that she was proud of the time spent in the Air Force and had the circumstances been...