RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03754
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: Jun 10, 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable
and reinstatement to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her discharge was inequitable in part because it was based on one isolated
incident in 10 years of honorable service with no other adverse action.
She regrets her mistake tremendously since she has had to carry the shame
and embarrassment, guilt and remorse.
She is currently a 100 percent service-connected disabled veteran. The
Oregon regional Veterans Administration (VA) rated her claim as 70 percent
with 30 percent un-employability.
She did not use judgment and now sees that she wanted to cover the pain of
being a victim of, first, childhood and then military sexual trauma. She
had hoped by joining the Air Force she would be safe from predators. She
reported it to her First Sergeant but he just moved her to another work
area.
She did not know she could have pushed for further action. She was just
told to be quiet about it. She was young and did not report or get help
the first time she was raped. She states after the first incident was
swept under the rug, she declined being raped again in Iceland by a 6’7”
Seabee.
She loved the Air Force and volunteered at any given chance and has led an
exemplary life since her discharge. She worked for 8 years as a 911
dispatcher until she was no longer able to due to her worsening symptoms,
which were devastating.
She has not had any legal problems since being discharged.
After her first incident with her supervisor, she blocked it out for
several years. She further stated she attended the National Center for
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and found it was common to convince
yourself that {incident with her supervisor} was a good time in your life.
She joined the Air Force for security, service, safety, and discipline
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s last period of active duty in the Air Force began on 8 Feb
82. She served for a period of 6 years, 11 months, and 24 days. Her DD
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, reflects she had
prior service credit for 3 years, 11 months, and 14 days.
On 8 Feb 88, the applicant received an Article 15 for the use of marijuana.
The applicant pleaded for leniency with regards to forfeiture of pay and
received a reduction in grade and vacation of noncommissioned officer (NCO)
status.
On 4 Mar 88, the applicant’s commander notified her of pending discharge
actions for drug abuse. He informed her he was recommending a general
(under honorable conditions) discharge.
On 7 Mar 88 and after consulting counsel, the applicant submitted a
conditional waiver of her rights contingent upon receiving no less than a
general (under honorable conditions) discharge.
On 15 Mar 88, the base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally
sufficient to support separation and recommended the applicant receive a
general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and
rehabilitation.
On 23 Mar 88, the discharge authority approved the separation and directed
the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions)
discharge. The applicant was discharged on 1 Apr 88 with a general (under
honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.
A resume of the applicant’s airman performance reports (APRS) follows:
Closeout Date Overall Rating
23 Feb 79 8
29 Jan 80 9
29 Jan 81 9
29 Jan 82 9
29 Jan 83 9
29 Jan 84 9
14 Jun 85 8
17 Mar 86 9
Closeout Date Overall Rating
17 Mar 87 9
2 Jan 88 9
On 17 Apr 91, the Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for
an upgrade of discharge.
On 26 Sep 01, the VA denied the applicant’s claim for post traumatic stress
disorder, personality disorder, and depression.
On 1 Aug 03, the VA rated the applicant as 70 percent disabled for post
traumatic stress disorder with depression and panic disorder. Her rating
was increased to 100% on 8 Dec 03.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C., indicated that on the basis of the data furnished, they
were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. Based on 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 to her general (under honorable conditions)
discharge or to be reinstated to active duty.
The complete evaluation of AFPC/DPPRS is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 30 Jan
07 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has
not received a response (Exhibit E).
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. 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 office of primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
_______________________________________________________________
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-2006-03754
in Executive Session on 17 April 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Jan 07.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Request, dated 6 Feb 07.
Exhibit D. Memo, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 24 Jan 07.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Feb 07.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02664
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFOLA/JAJM recommends denial. 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 office of...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03865
After almost 20 years of psychiatric treatment for major depression and post traumatic stress disorder, she was finally able to admit the Lt Col raped her on two separate occasions. It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge. Exhibit D. Extract, AFR 39-10 Exhibit E. Letter,...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02638
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered the Air Force on 10 Jun 98 and served on active duty until her Honorable Discharge on 9 Oct 06. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical...
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-03250
On 21 Jun 93, the applicant’s squadron commander notified her that he was considering whether to vacate the suspended punishment imposed on 15 Mar 93 for the alleged offenses of dereliction of duty and failure to obey a lawful general regulation. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s requests. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03754
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03754 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The complete HQ USAF/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends voiding the three contested EPRs,contingent upon the Board approving the applicants request to have his FA test results removed from his records. e. His effective date...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03035
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 | CY2007 | BC-2006-02597
The Air Force Informal Physical Evaluations Board’s (IPEB) determination that she be discharged from active service in the Air National Guard with a 20 percent disability was in error because the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), “[u]sing the same medical records and statements less than six months later,” rated her disability at 50 percent. The IPEB reviewed the request and determined that these two conditions, in and of themselves, are not unfitting conditions and therefore would not...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-00615
______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request for award of the AFCM be denied. The complete AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends the applicant’s records be changed to reflect she received a medical retirement with a 30 or 50 percent disability rating. The complete AFPC/DPSD complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03241
On 29 Aug 00, the applicant received notification that she was being recommended for discharge for erroneous enlistment. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that the requested relief should be approved.