RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04646

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES 




APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her last name on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed from Adkins to Williams.

2.  Her bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.

3.  The reason for her discharge be changed from court-martial to medically retired.

4.  Her rank be changed to either Airman First Class (E-3) (highest rank held) or Senior Airman (E-4) (recommended for promotion, all requirements met as of 5 Nov 99).  

5.  Any changes to her military records deemed appropriate after case review.



APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  Her last name on her DD Form 214 be changed as a result of her divorce decree dated 20 May 00.

2.  The investigation and court-martial were mishandled because her request for a sanity board and expert consultant were denied.

3.  She was not allowed to put forth a defense when faced with choosing between seven months or seven years confinement.  She took the seven months confinement versus seven years for the sake of her unborn daughter and family. 

4.  Her treatment during the course of the investigation and court martial left her mentally incapable of filing an application and obtaining assistance to correct her records.  What was intended as a short-term punishment has resulted in a lifetime of disability.

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



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 5 Mar 98.

On 31 May 00, the applicant was tried by general court-martial and found guilty of using cocaine and marijuana on multiple occasions, and sentenced to be discharged with a bad conduct discharge (BCD), confinement for seven months, and a reduction from the grade of airman first class (E-3) to the grade of airman basic (E-1).  

On 16 Oct 01, the convening authority ordered the applicant’s BCD to be executed.

On 22 Oct 01, the applicant was furnished a BCD and was credited with 3 years, 1 month, and 23 days of active service.   

On 27 Jun 14, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit J).  In response, she provides an email summarizing post-service events, to include being in and out of psychiatric care, suffering flashbacks and severe anxiety/panic attacks, and reiterating some of her pre-service issues that had long lasting effects on her life.  The applicant stated that she could not afford the $18 required for an FBI report, as she is desperately trying to keep her family’s home and vehicle at this point.  She did acknowledge that she accepted the recommendations of the advisories and requests the Board’s swift and compassionate decision for the sake of her family (Exhibit K). 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, E, F, and G. 



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice with respect to the court martial process.  The applicant argues that the court martial proceedings were mishandled because her request for a sanity board and expert consultant were denied.  However, a thorough review of the record revealed nothing which would indicate that the proceedings were mishandled.  She also argues that she was not allowed to put forth a defense.  She appears to be referring to the pretrial agreement she entered into with the convening authority in which she agreed to plead guilty in exchange for an Article 134 charge being withdrawn and sentencing limitations.  If the applicant would have wanted to back out of the pretrial agreement prior to the military judge accepting her guilty plea, she could have freely done so; therefore, her argument appears to lack merit. 

A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  A preponderance of evidence indicates the applicant did not have a mental disorder that can be directly attributed to or the cause of her misconduct.  Furthermore, the applicant did not present with evidence of a compensable mental disorder during her military service that was so severe as to cause termination of her military career.  Therefore, the applicant’s request to change her reason for discharge to medically retired should be denied.  

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

AFPC/DPSIRP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change her name on the DD Form 214, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  Air Force Instruction  36-2608, Military Personnel Records System, Table A7.3, Note 5 states "Do not correct records of former members unless evidence proves the name used while serving with the Air Force was erroneously recorded."  A review of the applicant's records revealed an Air Force Form 281, Notification of Change in Service Member's Official Records, dated 7 June 1999, that officially changed her last name.  There were no subsequent changes to the applicant's name before her discharge.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIRP evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant was court-martialed for using marijuana and cocaine on multiple occasions.  The imposed punishment consisted of a BCD, seven months confinement, and a reduction from E-3 to E-1.  AFLOA/JAJM reviewed this case and found no error in the processing of the court-martial.  Therefore, the applicant’s request for restoration of rank to  E-3 and/or promotion to E-4 should be denied.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit F. 

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge, to include the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code, narrative reason for separation, and character of service were correct and consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit G. 



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant conveyed her difficulty in preparing her application, apologizing for requesting wrong actions.  She still believes her case was mishandled, but she cannot provide any evidence to that fact because much of it happened during private conversations, and her mental health records were destroyed.  She requests that the Board upgrade her discharge as a matter of clemency (Exhibit I).  



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 offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  We note that this Board is without authority to reverse or set aside a court martial conviction, but may, in the interest of justice, upgrade a punitive discharge on the basis of clemency.  However, after a thorough review of the evidence provided, we cannot conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to recommend granting the requested relief.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.



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-2013-04646 in Executive Session on 23 Oct 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Sep 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 12 Dec 13.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated
	            30 Apr 14, w/atch.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIRP, dated 13 May 14,
	            w/atch.
	Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 5 Feb 14.
	Exhibit G.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 15 Jan 14.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 May 14,
	            w/atchs. 
Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 May 14.
Exhibit J.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Jun 14, w/atch.
Exhibit K.  Letter, Applicant, dated 31 Jul 14.