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

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-00480
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, she requests her under
honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to  an  honorable
discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 23 Feb 99 in the grade of  second
lieutenant.

The applicant’s request that her  general  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable, reimbursement of monies she paid  into  the  Montgomery  GI
Bill  and  change  the  narrative  reason  for  her  separation   from
misconduct to Secretarial Authority was considered and denied  by  the
Board on 4 Feb 03.  For an accounting of the facts  and  circumstances
surrounding the applicant’s requests and the rationale of the  earlier
decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings,  with  Exhibits,
at Exhibit G.

On 2 Mar 02, the applicant submitted an application to the  Air  Force
Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting  her  general  discharge  be
upgraded.  The AFDRB reviewed all the evidence and concluded that  the
discharge  was  consistent  with  the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion
of the discharge authority and that the applicant  was  provided  full
administrative due process (Exhibit H).

On 24 Nov 06, the applicant submitted a DD Form 149  with  attachments
requesting her general discharge be upgraded  to  honorable.   She  is
requesting a review of the AFDRB process because there was not  enough
evidence submitted in  her  favor  at  that  hearing.   She  has  also
submitted documentation showing the medications she was prescribed had
side effects of headache, agitation and disorientation (Exhibit I).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states based on the documentation
on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was  consistent
with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation. The discharge was within the discretion of  the  discharge
authority.  The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify  any
errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge  processing.   She
provided no facts warranting a change in her character of service.

The complete AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit J.

AFPC/JA recommends the application  be  denied.   AFPC/JA  states  the
applicant is requesting the Board review the proceedings of the AFDRB.
 The rules governing the AFBCMR does not permit  a  direct  appeal  or
review of the AFDRB findings.  The applicant is alleging that she  was
emotionally stressed which she had been under for many months and  the
side effects of the medications she was  taking  for  serious  medical
conditions contributed to, and presumably were  responsible  for,  the
behavior that resulted in her receiving the Article 15.  The applicant
has focused  her  application  on  this  particular  offense  and  the
circumstance surrounding it, making no reference to the other offenses
that originally formed the basis for her discharge.

The applicant seemingly is ignoring that her discharge for  cause  was
based on multiple incidents of misconduct  and  not  on  one  isolated
incident where she was experiencing emotional distress.  Even  if  the
focus was on the  incident  that  resulted  in  the  Article  15,  the
documentation and argument submitted by the applicant and the evidence
of record still does not serve to excuse the applicant’s behavior.

AFPC/JA further states that although the applicant may have been under
a lot of stress for severe  medical  conditions,  there  has  been  no
evidence provided to show that the emotional stress in any way  caused
her to be unable to distinguish right from wrong or otherwise  prevent
her from following required military customs, courtesies,  duties  and
behavior.  The evidence the applicant submits regarding the  potential
side effects of the medications she was taking at that time  does  not
negate or refute the misconduct that occurred.  Furthermore, there  is
no evidence showing that the applicant actually suffered from the side
effects of the medication that would cause an inability to distinguish
right from wrong or comply with military standards  of  behavior.   At
most, the stress the applicant was under and the possible side effects
of medication she was taking would serve to mitigate  the  seriousness
of the offense rather than negate it.

While the stress  related  to  the  applicant’s  physical  and  mental
condition prior to and during the time that she received  the  Article
15 punishment might have served to mitigate  the  seriousness  of  the
applicant’s behavior, these circumstances did not constitute a defense
to  the  repeated  misbehavior  engaged  in  by  the  applicant.   The
seriousness  and  repeated  nature  of  the  misconduct   was   firmly
established by the evidence of record and fully  supported  the  basis
for the administrative discharge for cause  and  characterization  she
received.

The complete AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit K.

The AFBCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  the  requested  relief  be
denied.  The Medical Consultant  states  the  applicant  presents  new
evidence from the Physicians Desk Reference that the side  effects  of
the medication she  was  prescribed  (Traxadone  and  Ativan)  include
agitation, headache and disorientation.  The  applicant’s  personality
disorder and reaction to stressful situations might  have  contributed
to her severe rashes, which in turn could increase her inherent stress
level.  The applicant’s personality disorder may also have  diminished
her capability to endure  the  stress  of  military  life.   Having  a
personality disorder may explain the cause of bad  behavior,  but  did
not excuse it.  Both the medications  the  applicant  claims  to  have
taken note the possibility of agitation as  a  possible  side  effect.
Furthermore, it appears the applicant  started  these  medications  at
least a year after her  misconduct  and  unprofessional  behavior  was
noted.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit L.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
15 Dec 06 and 31 Jul 07, for review and response within 30  days.   As
of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    After reviewing this application and the  evidence  provided  in
support of the appeal, we are not persuaded the  requested  relief  is
warranted.  We took notice of the applicant's complete  submission  in
judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and
recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility  and
adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant
has failed to sustain her burden of proof that she has suffered either
an  error  or  an  injustice.   Based  on  the  documentation  in  the
applicant's records, it appears the processing of  the  discharge  was
appropriate and accomplished in  accordance  with  Air  Force  policy.
Therefore, in view of the  above,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

2.    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   issues   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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-00480 in Executive Session on 11 Oct 07, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                       Mr. B J White-Olson, Member
                       Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit G. Record of Proceedings, dated 4 Feb 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit H. AFDRB Decisional Rationale.
      Exhibit I. DD Form 149, dated 24 Nov 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit J. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS dated 1 Dec 06.
      Exhibit K. Letter, HQ AFPC/JA dated 7 Dec 06.
      Exhibit L. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 15 Dec 06.
      Exhibit M. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated
                       27 Jul 07.
      Exhibit N. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 31 Jul 07.




                             WAYNE R. GRACIE
                             Panel Chair