RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-05506
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge 
[sic] be upgraded.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She should have had a psych evaluation before her discharge.  
She was sexually assaulted which resulted in her bipolar 
disorder, severe depression, personality disorder and paranoid 
features.

Her discharge is not dishonorable, it should have been UOTHC.

The applicant provides no rationale as to why her failure to 
timely file should be waived in the interest of justice.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, letters from friends and former military members who 
were aware of and assisted her during the assault.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 27 Jul 90, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force 
for a period of four years.  

On 22 Jul 92, the applicant was tried by a special court-martial 
at Tinker Air Force Base, OK.  A military judge found the 
applicant guilty, in accordance with her pleas, of larceny, in 
violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice 
(UCMJ); uttering a forged check (6 specifications), in violation 
of Article 123, UCMJ; and dishonorable failure to maintain 
sufficient funds (6 specifications), in violation of Article 
134, UCMJ.  The military judge sentenced the applicant to be 
discharged with a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD), to be confined 
for eight months, to forfeit $500 pay per month for eight 
months, and to be reduced from the grade of airman (E-2) to the 
grade of airman basic (E-1).  

On 14 Sep 92, the convening authority approved the sentence as 
adjudged.  On 22 Oct 92, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals 
determined that the findings and sentence were correct in law 
and fact.  On 22 Feb 93, the Court of Military Appeals denied 
the applicant's petition for grant of review.  On 30 Mar 93, the 
convening authority ordered the applicant's BCD be executed.  

On 12 Apr 93, the applicant was discharged by reason of 
conviction by court-martial (other than desertion), with a BCD.  
She was credited with 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day of active 
duty service, excluding lost time from 22 Jul 92 thru 6 Dec 
92 and 120 days of excess leave.  

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial.  The applicant argues that she 
should have received a psychological evaluation before she was 
discharged.  She provides information regarding a sexual assault 
which occurred prior to her discharge.  This resulted in her 
developing bipolar disorder, severe depression, and personality 
disorder.  The applicant would have had the opportunity to bring 
up evidence of her sexual assault to the military judge at the 
court-martial as a mitigating factor to be considered in 
sentencing.  She would have also had the opportunity to bring up 
the sexual assault to the convening authority during clemency.  
JAJM states they did not find an error or injustice with the 
court-martial process.


The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

She was never asked by the military judge about her military 
sexual trauma or current mental health condition.  

She was not afforded a defense just a plea bargain.

She never received a mental health evaluation or the treatment 
for her sexual trauma while in the service.  She was moved from 
one facility to another because of mental instability.

She needs her discharge upgraded so that she can receive 
treatment for her service connected disability.

Her recruiter that she saw years later informed her that she 
could reenlist and have her discharge upgraded.

In further support of her appeal, the applicant provides a 
personal statement and various other supporting documents. 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

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 note that 
this Board is without authority to reverse, set aside, or 
otherwise expunge a court-martial conviction.  Rather, in 
accordance with Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552(f), 
actions by this Board are limited to corrections to the record 
to reflect actions taken by the reviewing officials and action 
on the sentence of the court-martial for the purpose of 
clemency.  We find no evidence that indicates the applicant’s 
service characterization, which had its basis in her conviction 
by general court-martial and was a part of the sentence of the 
military court, was improper or that it exceeded the limitations 
set forth in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  We 
have considered the applicant's overall quality of service, the 
general court-martial conviction which precipitated the 
discharge, and the seriousness of the offense to which 
convicted.  However, in the absence of any evidence related to 
the applicant’s post-service activities that would enable us to 
determine if her accomplishments since her discharge are 
sufficient to overcome the misconduct for which she was 
discharged, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider 
this application.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 
that 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-2013-05506 in Executive Session on 18 Sep 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Nov 13, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 10 Feb 14.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 14.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 31 Mar 14, w/atchs.