RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01362

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be 
changed to a medical discharge.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She had medical conditions that prohibited her from thinking 
rationally.  Her symptoms began during the Gulf War immediately 
after receiving the anthrax shot.  She was diagnosed with Post 
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), chronic headaches, Irritable 
Bowel Syndrome (IBS), insomnia, depression, and severe auto immune 
disorder.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release 
or Discharge from Active Duty, on 12 Mar 97, she entered the 
Regular Air Force.

On 24 Jun 99, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was 
recommending her discharge from the Air Force for Misconduct - 
Pattern of Misconduct.  The specific reasons for the action were 
that:

      a.  On 21 Aug 97, she received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) 
for failing to make a mandatory formation.

	b.  On 8 Jan 99, she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for 
intentionally misrepresenting her involvement in a major incident 
that occurred off-base.

	c.  On 24 Mar 99, she received Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) 
for unlawfully striking someone in the face with her hands.

	d.  On 7 Apr 99, she received a Record of Individual 
Counseling (RIC) for being away from her appointed place of duty 
for too long. 

	e.  On 6 May 99, she received a LOR for dereliction of duty 
by failing to return to work after dropping off a friend at the 
hospital. 

	f.  On 24 May 99, she received NJP for failing to go to her 
appointed place of duty at the prescribed time between on or about 
9 Apr 99 to on or about 22 Apr 99.

On 24 Jun 99, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, 
and on 25 Jun 99, she waived her right to a board hearing and to 
consult with legal counsel and submitted a statement in her own 
behalf.

On 30 Jul 99, the case was reviewed and determined to be legally 
sufficient.

On 13 Aug 99, the discharge authority directed the applicant be 
discharged with an UOTHC discharge.

On 18 Aug 99, the applicant received an UOTHC discharge and was 
credited with 2 years, 5 months, and 7 days of total active 
service.

On 28 Jun 13, SAF/MRBC notified the applicant that her application 
was administratively closed as a result of her expressing the 
necessity for more time to gather more evidence in support of her 
case (Exhibit G).

On 5 Feb 14, the applicant requested that her case be reopened.  
In support of her contentions that her medical conditions 
contributed to her misconduct, the applicant provides excerpts 
from her medical records that she believes describes her medical 
conditions after receiving the anthrax shot which was the cause of 
all of her issues that resulted in her discharge (Exhibit J).


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating the 
burden of proof has not been met to warrant granting the 
applicant’s request to replace her administrative discharge with a 
medical separation.  Based on the evidence provided, there is no 
medical condition found that established a definitive cause and 
effect relationship between the applicant’s duty performance and a 
medical ailment; nor one which justifies an alternative medical 
basis for release from military service.  In order to procedurally 
make the change from a UOTHC discharge to a medical retirement, 
there must be evidence of a disqualifying and compensable [In Line 
of Duty] medical condition that, at the time of the applicant’s 
service, concurrently interfered with her ability to perform 
military duties and rendered her non-worldwide qualified; which 
then resulted in a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), followed by a 
review and an unfit finding by a Physical Evaluation Board.

While the applicant proposes establishment of a causal and 
mitigating relationship between her Anthrax vaccination and her 
acts of misconduct, the Medical Consultant does not find such a 
definitive relationship; notwithstanding the fact that the 
Department of Veterans Affairs may establish a presumptive nexus 
of certain conditions with military service by virtue of an 
individual’s Gulf War experiences.  The nature of the applicant’s 
misconduct is not unique to or diagnostic of any particular 
compensable mental, neurological, or physiologic disorder; and the 
type of misconduct committed by her may also occur among the 
medically unimpaired population.  There is no evidence that the 
applicant had a diagnosable compensable medical condition during 
her military service that also demonstrated, by virtue of its 
severity, evidence that warranted processing through the military 
Disability Evaluation System.

Operating under a different set of laws, Title 38, U.S.C., the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) is authorized to offer 
compensation for any medical condition which it finds service-
connected, without regard to [and independent of] its demonstrated 
or proven impact upon a service member’s retainability, fitness to 
serve, narrative reason for separation, or the intervening period 
since the date of separation.  

The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 24 May 13 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or injustice to warrant a change to the applicant’s 
discharge characterization.  Based on the documentation on file in 
the master personnel records, the discharge to include her 
characterization of service was consistent with the procedural and 
substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority.

AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.48.1 
states that discharges arising from a pattern of misconduct should 
be characterized as UOTHC.  However, under paragraph 5.48, if the 
circumstances are such that a UOTHC discharge is not warranted, a 
general discharge is appropriate.  A UOTHC should only be given 
when a pattern or behavior or one or more acts or omissions from 
the member constitutes a significant departure from the conduct 
expected of airmen (such as the use of force or violence to 
produce serious bodily injury or death, abuse of a special 
position of trust, disregard by a superior of customary superior-
subordinate relationships, or acts or omissions that endanger 
national security or the safety of personnel).  Since the 
applicant’s conduct was of such a serious nature, a UOTHC was 
approved.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit E.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 21 Jun 13 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F).  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 28 Jun 13, the applicant’s case was administratively closed 
after she expressed a necessity for more time to gather more 
evidence in her case.  The applicant subsequently provided copies 
medical documentation that she believes supports her contention 
that her medical issues were the cause of her misconduct.

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant provides a supplemental advisory and 
recommends denial of the applicant’s request to supplement her 
UOTHC discharge with a medical discharge.  The Medical Consultant 
cannot make a definitive causal or mitigating relationship between 
the applicant’s disciplinary infractions and the effects of the 
Anthrax vaccination.  However, it is conceivable that the 
applicant’s contention of sleep problems may have contributed to 
the offenses that resulted in her 24 May 99 NJP action.  
Nevertheless, the other offenses in which she was recommended for 
discharge cannot be attributed to a specific medical disorder.  
While striking another female in the face suggests some problem 
with anger management or impulse control, it also does not excuse 
the behavior; particularly in the absence of a psychotic disorder 
or other potentially mitigating impairment.  In any case, there is 
no evidence presented to suggest a disqualifying physical or 
mental impairment existed that warranted a MEB.

The Medical Consultant notes that the previous administrative 
closure of the applicant’s case now has her on the border of the 
15-year time restriction to apply to the Air Force Discharge 
Review Board (AFDRB).  Therefore, the Board may consider the 
applicant’s petition through the lens of the AFDRB by considering 
whether the applicant would have received a UOTHC discharge had 
she not received the 24 May 99 NJP action; which appears, at least 
in part, mitigated by sleep impairment.  If so, the Board may find 
it appropriate to upgrade the applicant’s discharge 
characterization to general (under honorable conditions), which 
may result in her receiving access to needed services by the DVA.  

The complete AFBCMR Medical Consultant supplemental evaluation is 
at Exhibit H.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant provides six pages of excerpts from her medical 
records and a copy of her VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of 
Claim, in support of her contentions that her medical conditions 
contributed to her being administratively discharged (Exhibit J).


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 to warrant a 
medical discharge.  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 AFPC/DPSOR and adopt their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error of injustice.  We note the AFBCMR 
Medical Consultant states the applicant’s 24 May 99 NJP action 
appears to be in part mitigated by sleep impairment and suggests 
upgrading her discharge to honorable.  However, the applicant has 
provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the 
characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions of 
the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the 
offenses committed.  In the interest of justice, we considered 
upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence 
of any evidence related to the applicant’s post-service 
activities, there is no way for us to determine if the applicant’s 
accomplishments since leaving the service warrant such an action.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
basis to recommend granting the relief sought.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2013-01362 in Executive Session on 13 May 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                   , Panel Chair
	                  , Member
	                     , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Mar 13, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 22 May 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 24 May 13.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 5 Jun 13.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 13.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 28 Jun 13.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 7 Nov 14.
	Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Jan 15.
	Exhibit J.  Medical Excerpts provided by the Applicant.