RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02845

	EGA	COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected to reflect she received a medical 
discharge.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While on active duty she did not receive the appropriate mental 
health evaluation or care.  Her physical and mental issues 
started in 2001.  She was involved in two motor vehicle 
accidents and was sexually assaulted.  She used alcohol and pain 
medication to cope and hide the physical pain and trauma of 
being sexually assaulted.   

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a statement and 
documents extracted from her Department of Veterans Affairs 
(DVA) medical records.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 21 December 1999, the applicant commenced her enlistment in 
the Regular Air Force. 

On 12 November 2002, the applicant’s commander notified her that 
he was recommending her discharge from the Air Force for 
misconduct-minor disciplinary infractions.  The reasons for the 
discharge action included the applicant’s receipt of nine 
Letters of Counseling (LOC) for failure to complete Career 
Development Courses (CDC), failure to a obey regulation, failure 
to perform her duties, and failure to wear safety protection 
when required; four Letters of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to 
complete CDCs, missing a mandatory formation, and failure to 
perform her duties; and an Article 15 for going from her 
appointed place of duty without authority  The commander 
indicated in his recommendation for discharge that numerous 
attempts were provided to the applicant to meet Air Force 
standards, however, all attempts were unsuccessful.  The 
commander further noted the applicant did not have any medical 
or other data meriting consideration.

On 19 November 2002, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
action and, after consulting with legal counsel, elected to 
submit a statement in response to the action.  The applicant 
noted in her response to the discharge action that she had been 
involved in a motor vehicle accident and was being targeted 
because of the many appointments she had on and off duty for 
treatment of her injuries from the accident.  She further 
indicated that the treatment she was undergoing made it 
difficult for her to dedicate herself to her career, but that 
once her treatment was over she was willing to give it 110 
percent.  She further noted her ability to serve was impacted by 
her youth and immaturity.

On 22 November 2002, the discharge authority directed the 
applicant be furnished a general discharge and the applicant was 
so discharged and credited with 2 years, 5 months, and 22 days 
of total active service.

According to documentation provided by the applicant, the DVA 
granted the applicant service connection for a variety of 
medical conditions, to include Post Traumatic Stress Disorder 
(PTSD), in August 2012.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  Based on the documentation on file 
in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge 
to include her character of service was consistent with the 
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority.  The applicant has not provided any evidence of 
an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge 
processing. 

According to AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airman, 
paragraph 1.18.2, a general discharge is appropriate when 
"significant negative aspects of the airman's conduct or 
performance of duty outweighs positive aspects of the airman's 
military record."  The applicant's misconduct clearly 
outweighed the positive aspects of her service.  The 
commander stated before recommending the discharge, every 
effort was made by the applicant’s supervision to 
rehabilitate her.  The applicant received numerous verbal and 
written counselings, LOR's and an Article 15, due to her 
misconduct on and off duty.  The applicant demonstrated a lack 
of respect for authority and a total disregard for polices and 
procedure throughout her military service.  Her records further 
showed she was counseled repeatedly and afforded an opportunity 
to overcome her deficiencies.  The discharge authority approved a 
general discharge based on the applicant’s overall performance.  
Her misconduct disrupted good order, discipline, and morale with 
the military community; hence, the discharge was appropriate.

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 
applicant’s narrative reason for separation.  Under the 
provisions of AFI 48-123, Medical Examinations and Standards, to 
qualify for a medical separation or retirement, there must be a 
disqualifying medical condition that interferes with duty or 
worldwide qualification, as would be reflected through profile 
restrictions of a sufficient level, e.g., “S-4” and duration (12 
or more months), thereby initiating a Medical Evaluation Board 
(MEB).  The applicant’s profile designations were all “S-1” 
worldwide qualified.  The adjustment disorder mentioned in her 
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention & Treatment (ADAPT) progress 
notes would not have qualified for a medical discharge.  It 
wasn’t until several years after leaving military service that 
the applicant presented/reported signs and symptoms consistent 
with PTSD.  It was not until her August 2012 Compensation and 
Pension (C&P) examination that it was determined she suffered 
from PTSD that was attributed to military sexual trauma.  The 
applicant elected not to disclose the true circumstances of her 
sexual encounter to anyone, but only reported it as a possible 
sexually transmitted disease (STD) exposure.  However, she did 
disclose the name of the individual in order that treatment of 
any medical condition could be provided to them both.  
Furthermore, there is no evidence of pharmacologic treatment or 
psychotherapy for a mental disorder in the applicant’s military 
medical records.

The Medical Consultant concedes it appears counterintuitive to 
allow an administrative discharge to stand for several minor 
disciplinary infractions for an individual possibly tormented 
during this period due to sexual trauma; or at least since 
leaving military service.  However, in the absence of service 
clinical evidence of a diagnosable, compensable, and unfitting 
mental disorder during the applicant's military service, it is 
virtually impossible, through the extensive passage of time, to 
now invalidate the reason for the applicant's discharge for acts 
of misconduct that appear to have no demonstrable relationship 
with her military sexual trauma; particularly in the context of 
the applicant's failure to timely disclose the facts of her case 
for proper intervention until several years after release from 
service.  Moreover, although the unreported and unprosecuted 
crime of rape may have occurred during the applicant's military 
service, the apparent delayed clinical manifestations (or 
delayed reporting) of symptoms consistent with PTSD, as noted at 
her subsequent DVA examination in August 2012 and thereafter, 
are not determinative that PTSD was either a diagnosable or an 
unfitting medical condition at the time of her release from 
service.  Finally, the DVA is the safety net authorized, under 
Title 38 United States Code (U.S.C.), to offer compensation for 
any medical condition with an established nexus with military 
service, without regard its proven impact upon a former service 
member's retainability, fitness to serve, narrative reason for 
release from service, or the duration of time passed since 
separation.  The Military Department, operating under Title 10, 
U.S.C., can only offer compensation for an illness or injury 
that is the cause for career termination.  The decision is based 
upon the evidence present at the "snap shot" in time of military 
service, and not that which presents several years after release 
from service.  This is the reason why an individual may be 
released from service for one reason and later receive a 
compensation rating for one or more medical conditions that were 
not considered militarily unfitting or rendered the individual 
eligible for military disability processing at the time of 
release from military service.  The DVA is also empowered to 
conduct periodic re-evaluations for the purpose of adjusting the 
disability rating determinations (increase or decrease) as the 
level of impairment from a given medical condition may vary 
(worsen or improve) over the lifetime of the veteran.

The Medical Consultant hopes the applicant continues to receive 
the support she requires through the DVA or other support 
agencies, but finds the burden of proof of error or injustice 
has not been met to warrant the requested remedies.

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is 
at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 25 October 2013 and 28 October 2013 for review and 
comment within 30 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 opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility (OPR) and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt 
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant 
has not been the victim 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 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-2013-02845 in Executive Session on 8 April 2014, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 June 2012, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 11 October 2013.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 
	            dated 24 October 2013.
	Exhibit E.  Letters, AFBCMR, dated 25 October and
	            28 October 2013 13.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair