RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04483 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to 
an honorable or a medical discharge. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She has been awarded compensation from the Department of Veterans 
Affairs (DVA) for medical conditions (post-traumatic-stress-
disorder (PTSD), migraines and back problems) due to an in-
service trauma which led to her discharge from the Air Force. 

 

In support of the applicant’s appeal, she provides a personal 
statement, DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge 
from the Armed Forces of the United States, and a Department of 
Veterans Affairs (DVA) Rating Decision. 

 

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 23 October 
1996. 

 

The applicant was notified by her commander of his intent to 
recommend her discharge from the Air Force under the provisions 
of AFPD 36-32 and AFI 36-3208 - Unsatisfactory Performance. The 
specific reasons follow: 

 

 a. The applicant did between 11 June 1997 and 20 August 
1997 receive numerous Letters of Counseling (LOCs) for 
dereliction in the performance of her duties, insubordination to 
a superior, repeated and numerous errors in her work product, and 
for failing to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place 
of duty. 

 

 

 


 b. The applicant did on 18 August 1997 treat her supervisor 
with disrespect in language and deportment - for this misconduct 
she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR). 

 

 c. On 23 July 1997, the applicant received a Memorandum for 
Record (MFR) which indicated while in training at Kessler AFB, 
the applicant’s primary instructor and supervisor were reluctant 
to send the applicant to the field because she failed almost 
every task at least once, many twice, and had some trouble with 
authority during her training. 

 

 d. AF Forms 623a, On-The-Job-Training Record, reflect the 
applicant did not progress on the job as anticipated, she did not 
perform at the 3-skill level, and she was derelict in the 
performance of her duties. 

 

She was advised of her rights in this matter and after consulting 
with counsel the applicant elected to submit a statement on her 
own behalf. In a legal review of the case file, the staff judge 
advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended 
discharge. The discharge authority concurred with the 
recommendation and directed a general (under honorable 
conditions) discharge. The applicant was discharged on 
14 October 1997. She served 11 months and 22 days on active 
duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant did not 
submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices in the 
processing of her separation. Based on the documentation on file 
in the master personnel records, the applicant’s discharge to 
include her narrative reason for separation was appropriately 
administered and was properly reflected on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. 

 

The DPSOS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical 
Consultant states the applicant contends that certain medical 
conditions caused her poor duty performance. However, no 
evidence is presented, e.g., medical narratives, episodes of 
care, psychiatric evaluations, and pro-file restrictions imposed 
of a sufficient level, e.g., “S4T” profile, or a duration to 
indicate the applicant was unable to perform the duties of her 
office; grade, rank, and rating to justify a Medical Evaluation 
Board; nor which rendered her non-worldwide qualified due to any 
medical conditions or not expected to resolve within 365 days. 
There is a suggestion in an email transmission that the applicant 
may have experienced some emotional trauma following the suicide 
of her training partner. No medical documentation is presented 


to show this interfered with her military service or caused her 
poor duty performance. 

 

The Medical Consultant is empathetic with the applicant’s desire 
for an upgrade of discharge to honorable, noting the 
preponderance of her disciplinary infractions were performance, 
and not misconduct, related. Absent the applicant’s misconduct, 
an honorable character of service would be appropriate. The 
discharge authority and the legal reviewer were completely aware 
of and likely considered this option, but found the general 
discharge legally sufficient. Thus, to supplant the discharge 
characterization with an honorable would be based solely on a 
difference of opinion or interpretation of the weight of evidence 
[performance and misconduct] versus legal sufficiency alone. 
Consequently, the Medical Consultant opines the burden of proof 
of error or injustice has not been met for the desired changes of 
the record. The board may yet decide upon an upgrade of 
discharge based upon clemency or if an interpretation of the 
weight of evidence suggests that the general service 
characterization was too harsh. The applicant is advised that 
she has not exhausted all administrative remedies, as she remains 
eligible for presenting her case before a Discharge Review Board, 
via administrative review or personal appearance, for which she 
may present additional facts and evidence, with legal counsel and 
witnesses to support her contentions. 

 

The Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 13 November 2012, copies of the Air Force evaluations were 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 15 days 
(Exhibit E). 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 an 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 AFBCMR Medical Consultant and the Air Force 
office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the 


basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain 
his burden of proof of the existence of an error or injustice. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-04483 in Executive Session on 27 November 2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-04483 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 February 2012, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 1 March 2012. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 

 dated 5 November 2012. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 November 2012.