RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00478
			COUNSEL:  NONE
			HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The following corrections be made to her DD Form 214, 
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty:

    1.  Block 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) and 4b (Pay Grade) be 
changed to reflect Senior Airman (SrA).

    2.  Block 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and 
Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) should reflect award of 
the:
	a. Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM). (will be 
administratively corrected)

        b. Air Force Overseas Ribbon-Short Tour (AFOR-ST).

    3.  Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) be changed 
from “Pregnancy” to “Medical.”

________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  She should have been promoted to the grade of SrA.  She 
completed 36 months on active duty, was proficient in on-the-job 
training, physical fitness requirements, and performed at or 
above expectations.

2.  She was awarded the AFAM.

3.  She completed a short tour and long tour as evidenced on her 
DD Form 214.

4.  The specific medical condition on her DD Form 214 violates 
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).  
Once she registers her DD Form 214 with the county clerk, her DD 
Form 214 becomes a public record.

In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her 
DD Form 214; AF Form 100, Request and Authorization for 
Separation, Report of Fitness Test, training records, orders, 
certificates and motor vehicle operation ID card.

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

________________________________________________________________


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served on active duty in the Regular Air Force 
from 9 Apr 92 to 10 Apr 95.  

Her DD Form 214 reflects her entitlement to the National Defense 
Service Medal, Air Force Training Ribbon, and the AFOR-Long Tour 
(AFOR-LT).  She completed 3 years and 1 day of total active 
service, with 2 years, 7 months, and 27 days being Foreign 
Service.

AFPC/DPSID was able to verify the applicant’s entitlement to the 
AFAM and the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM) and will 
administratively correct her records to reflect these awards.

________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change her rank and pay grade reflected on her DD Form 214.  
DPSOE states that the applicant does not provide, nor does her 
record contain, any official documentation (orders) promoting 
her to the grade of senior airman.  

DPSOE states that airman first class are eligible for promotion 
consideration to senior airman upon meeting minimum requirements 
in AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, Table 2.1, 
recommended by commander in writing, have 36 months’ time-in-
service (TIS) and 20 months’ time-in-grade (TIG), or 28 months 
TIG, whichever occurs first.  Based on the applicant’s date of 
rank (DOR) to airman first class, she would have been eligible 
for promotion consideration to senior airman effective 9 Apr 
95 (the day prior to her separation).

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request for 
entitlement to the AFOR-ST.  DPSID states that they were unable 
to verify the applicant was credited with the completion of an 
overseas tour that qualifies for award of the AFOR-ST.  

The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates she was awarded the AFOR-
LT for her tour of duty at Kadena Air Base, Japan.  

The AFOR was authorized by the Chief of Staff, United States Air 
Force, on 12 Oct 80.  The ribbon was authorized to be awarded to 
Air Force and Air Force Reserve members credited with completion 
of an overseas tour on or after 1 Sep 80.  Only individuals 
serving on active duty as of 6 Jan 86 are eligible to have the 
AFOR applied retroactively for completion of an overseas tour.  
The ribbon is awarded for completion of a short tour or 
completion of a long tour as defined by AFI 36-2110, 
Assignments.

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change her narrative reason for separation from Pregnancy to 
Medical.  DPSOS states that the applicant applied for separation 
with an effective date of 10 Apr 95 for Pregnancy, and her 
request was approved by the discharge authority.  She was 
discharged per her request and was not discharged because of 
medical pregnancy reasons.  Based on the documentation on file 
in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent 
with the procedural and substantive requirements of the 
discharge regulation. The applicant has not provided any 
supporting documents that would warrant a change to her 
separation code or narrative reason for separation.

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The 100 percent service-connected disability award letter from 
the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) directly refutes the 
advisory writer’s assertion “...the basis for the applicant’s 
requested action has no merit and is submitted to gain 
entitlement to VA benefits for which she is not entitled based 
on her limited time on active duty.”  

As a result of an exhaustive investigation conducted by the DVA, 
she has been awarded a service-connected disability rating of 
100 percent for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) which was 
caused by a hostile work environment during her active duty 
service.  The advisory writer’s assertions are unacceptable and 
an example of the vitriolic treatment that veterans do not 
deserve.  She would like to have this portion of the research 
and determination removed from her proceedings and the research 
done by an objective individual, preferable a female.

She is rated at 100 percent by the VA and has been receiving 
benefits long before this proceeding; therefore, she would like 
a code representing a medical discharge.

The applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit F. 

________________________________________________________________

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 to warrant 
changing her grade to SrA or to award the AFOR-ST.  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 Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that 
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  
Regarding the applicant’s request to change her narrative reason 
for separation from pregnancy to a medical discharge, as noted 
by the Separations Branch, the applicant was approved for a 
pregnancy discharge per her request and was not discharged due 
to medical pregnancy reasons.  The applicant has not presented 
substantial evidence to support her claim that her narrative 
reason for separation should be changed to a medical discharge.  
In view of the above and 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 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 Docket Number    
BC-2013-00478 in Executive Session on 26 Sep 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jan 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 13 Mar 13.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 14 May 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 28 Jun 12 [sic].
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 13.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Aug 13, w/atchs.




				
				Panel Chair