RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02735
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. Her narrative reason for separation be changed to reflect
medical rather than miscellaneous/general reasons.
2. She be evaluated by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
While on active duty, she was sexually assaulted. Although she
sought medical care days after the assault, she believes she was
not provided adequate support or allowed the appropriate time to
adjust or recover after the incident due to her chain of
commands attitude towards the assault. She separated from the
Air Force within a year after her assault due to her emotional
problems. Her frame of mind after the sexual assault affected
her ability to make a reasonable decision regarding her
separation. She was not provided adequate counseling regarding
her options during the discharge process.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 27 Feb 07, the applicant commenced her enlistment in the
Regular Air Force.
On 17 Jul 10, the applicant presented to the emergency room
reporting she was sexually assaulted the previous evening.
On 11 Jun 11, the applicant submitted a request for voluntary
separation noting she was having difficulties coping with the
Air Force since the sexual assault. She noted the assailant was
from another branch of military service. She further noted she
was having difficulties with being separated from her husband
who was her biggest supporter.
On 25 Jul 11, the applicant was honorably released from active
duty with a narrative reason for separation as miscellaneous/
general reasons. She was credited with 4 years, 4 months, and
29 days of active service.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial noting there is
no evidence of an error or injustice with respect to the
applicants separation from the Air Force. While on active duty
the applicant was sexually assaulted. Although she received
appropriate emergent care and follow-up counseling, her medical
condition was never considered to have interfered with her
duties to warrant extended profile restrictions, long-standing
prohibition of worldwide qualification, or referral for a
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). This is evidenced by her
consistent release to duty without restrictions, except for one
three-month period, throughout her period of treatment;
following which she was, again, returned to duty without
restrictions. She alleges she was not provided adequate support
by her chain of command. However, there is no evidence showing
she was subject to any reprisal, disciplinary action, or gender
discrimination due to her chain of commands lack of support.
As for the portion of her request for a medical
separation/retirement, the military Disability Evaluation System
(DES) was established to maintain a fit and vital fighting force
and can by law only offer compensation for those service
incurred diseases or injuries which specifically rendered a
member unfit for continued active service and were the cause for
career termination; and then only for the degree of impairment
present at the time of separation and not based on future
occurrences. Under the Department of Defense Instruction (DODI)
1332.32, Physical Disability Evaluation, a service member shall
be considered unfit when the evidence establishes that the
member, due to physical disability, is unable to reasonably
perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating
to include duties during a remaining period of Reserve
obligation. Therefore, while the applicants record does
reflect she sought and received mental health counseling prior
to her separation, there is no indication that her condition was
determined to be so severe as to warrant processing through the
military DES.
As for her contention she was not given adequate or proper
support and treatment, the medical entries in her records
reflect she received regular and follow-up care throughout her
military service. The Medical Consultant notes the heightened
concerns for sexual assault in the military services, and the
instances in which improper or no actions were taken against the
assailants. Although documentation related to the legal
proceedings have not been supplied, the applicant reports that
her assailant was found guilty via court-martial and sentenced
to two years in prison.
The Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans
Affairs (DVA) operate under a different set of laws with
different purposes. The DVA is authorized to offer compensation
for any medical condition with an established nexus with
military service, without regard to its demonstrated or proven
impact upon a service member's retainability, fitness to serve,
narrative reason for release from service, or the length of
intervening time since release from service. The laws that
govern the DVA compensation system allow awarding compensation
ratings for conditions that were not unfitting during military
service or at the time of separation. This is the reason why an
individual can be found fit for release from military service
for one reason and sometime thereafter receive a compensation
rating from the DVA for a service-connected, but not militarily
unfitting condition. The DVA is also empowered to conduct
periodic re-evaluations for the purpose of adjusting the
disability rating awards (increase or decrease) as the level of
impairment from a given service connected medical condition may
vary (improve or worsen) over the lifetime of the veteran.
A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultants 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 10 Sep 13 for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit C). 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. 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 adopt his rationale as the
basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim
of an error or injustice with respect to her discharge
processing. The applicant contends that due to the trauma of
being sexually assaulted she should have been evaluated by a
medical evaluation board (MEB) and receive a medical discharge.
However, we find no evidence of a medical condition of such a
severity that it rendered the applicant unfit to perform her
duties, thus warranting evaluation through the disability
evaluation system (DES) at the time of her separation. The
applicant further alleged she was not provided adequate support
by her rating chain following the sexual assault. However,
there is no evidence she was prohibited from seeking medical
care (to include mental health) or subjected unfair treatment by
her chain of command. Ultimately, while we are very sensitive
to the applicants plight, neither the evidence of record, nor
the documentation provided by the applicant are sufficient for
us to conclude that she should have been found unfit at the time
of her separation and, thus, entitled to processing under the
DES. As indicated by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant, the
Department of Defense can only offer disability compensation for
unfitting conditions that caused the early termination of a
members military career. On the other hand, the Department of
Veterans Affairs is empowered to evaluate any medical condition
incurred in the line of duty, not just those rendering a member
unfit, and provide disability compensation. As such, we believe
the applicant would be well-served to avail herself of the
services of the DVA to ensure that any potential chronic effects
of the sexual assault are appropriately treated and evaluated in
the proper venue. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.
________________________________________________________________
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-2013-02735 in Executive Session on 17 Apr 14, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2013-02735 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Jun 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant,
dated 6 Sep 13.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Sep 13.
Panel Chair
Dear APPLICANT:
After careful consideration of your application for correction of military records,
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-02735, the Board determined there was insufficient
evidence of an error or injustice to warrant corrective action. Accordingly, your application is
denied.
You have the right to submit a request for reconsideration by the Board. However, such a
request must be accompanied by newly discovered relevant evidence that was not available at the
time of your original application. Absent such additional evidence, further consideration of your
application is not possible. Additionally, the reiteration of facts previously addressed by the
Board, uncorroborated personal observations, or additional arguments on the evidence of record
is also not grounds for reopening a case.
Should you decide to submit a request for reconsideration of your case, please forward
your request and any supporting evidence to the address below where it will be reviewed to
determine if it meets the criteria for reconsideration by the Board:
SAF/MRBR
550 C Street West Suite 40
Randolph AFB TX 78150-4742
THIS ACTION IS TAKEN UNDER THE AUTHORITY DELEGATED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE.
Executive Director
Air Force Board for Correction
of Military Records
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00730
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00730 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Separation Program Designator (SPD) code be changed to SFJ Permanent Disability Retirement. We do not believe the decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) to grant the applicant service connection and disability compensation for her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) establishes a basis for a...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03047
The LOD was received by NGB/SG after the applicant was separated from the military. The complete SGPA evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends a finding of Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), in line of duty, that her PTSD was unfitting for continued military service, and that she be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a compensable disability rating of 50 percent, under VASRD Code 9411, effective 29 Mar 13. The complete BCMR Medical...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01726
On 7 and 23 June 1978, she failed to report for duty, for which she received two failures to repair letters. 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. 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00847
The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence which would lead us to believe that at the time of her discharge, a physical condition existed that was determined by competent medical authority to be a physical disability which specifically rendered her unfit for continued military service. However, we note that 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...
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 | CY2013 | BC-2013-00510
Furthermore, in accordance with Department of Defense Instruction 1332.38, Physical Disability Evaluation, paragraph E3.P3.3.3, Adequate Performance until Referral, If the evidence establishes that the Service member adequately performed his or her duties until the time the Service member was referred for physical evaluation, the member may be considered fit for duty even though medical evidence indicates questionable physical ability to continue to perform duty. The Medical Advisor states...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00530
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00530 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The legal review for discharge action by the staff judge advocate reflects an investigation was conducted regarding two allegations by the applicant of sexual assault. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant states although certain documents of record...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03113
Further, it must be noted that the service disability boards must rate disabilities based on the individual's condition at the time of evaluation. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPD recommends the requested relief be denied. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial noting that while there may have been sufficient evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02845
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice to warrant changing the applicants narrative reason for separation. However, she did disclose the name of the individual in order that treatment of any medical condition could be provided to them both. However, in the absence of service clinical evidence of a diagnosable, compensable, and unfitting mental disorder during the...