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.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The applicant, through counsel, contends she was awarded 
disability compensation from the Department of Veteran’s Affairs 
(DVA) and her discharge from the military should reflect 
disability retirement as well. 

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
20 Jul 94.

On 19 Dec 98, the applicant was furnished an honorable 
discharge, with narrative reason for separation of “Completion 
of Required Active Service,” along with an SPD code of “JBK” and 
Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2X “(1st term, 2nd term or 
career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment).”  
She was credited with four years and five months of active 
service.   

By virtue of a DD Form 149, dated 14 Dec 99, the applicant 
requested that her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect RE code “3K” 
– Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the Air Force Board for 
Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) when no other 
reenlistment eligibility code applies or is appropriate.  The 
applicant contended that her non-selection for reenlistment and 
Unfavorable Information File/Control Roster actions were unjust.  
However, after a thorough review of the evidence of record, on 
27 Oct 00, the Board denied her request as it found that her 
substandard record of performance and not meeting military 
standards was a sufficient basis for her to be denied 
reenlistment.  However, the majority of the Board concluded that 
it would be in the interest of justice to correct the 
applicant’s RE code to allow her the opportunity for future 
military service; as a matter of fairness and the applicant’s 
honorable characterization of service.  The applicant did 
subsequently re-enter military service in the Air National Guard 
on 8 Dec 00, where she was promoted to Senior Airman (E-4) on 
26 Jul 01.

On 1 Feb 03, the applicant entered a special active duty tour as 
a reservist and served through 19 Jun 03.

On 12 Jun 03, a Line of Duty (LOD) determination was initiated 
on the applicant for thyroid goiter and depression incurred 
while in the line of duty.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  The Air Force Board For Correction Of 
Military Records (AFBCMR) convened on 27 Oct 00 based on an 
application submitted by the applicant and directed that the 
applicant's RE code be changed to "3K".  The AFBCMR believed 
that this RE code change would allow the applicant an 
opportunity for future military service through a waiver 
process.  The Board did not direct correction to the SPD code of 
JBK and it did not direct correction to the narrative reason for 
separation.  Although the AFBCMR changed the applicant’s RE code 
to “3K,” the original circumstances surrounding her separation 
remained in effect; therefore, the SPD code and narrative reason 
for separation are correct as indicated on the DD Form 214.  
Based on documents that are on file in the master personnel 
records, the discharge, to include her SPD code, narrative 
reason for separation, and character of service were consistent 
with the procedural and substantive requirements of the Air 
Force instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority. 

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

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial indicating there 
is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The military 
Disability Evaluation System (DES), established to maintain a 
fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under Title 10, United 
States Code, 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 “snap shot” time of separation and not based on future 
occurrences.  Moreover, under DoDI 6130.04 [Jan 2005] and .03 
[Apr 2010], Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or 
Induction in the Armed Forces, “Current history of anxiety 
disorder, panic, agoraphobia, social phobia, simple phobias, 
obsessive-compulsive, or other acute reactions to stress, post-
traumatic stress disorder are disqualifying,” which would have 
precluded service re-entry.  Even if taking into consideration 
that possible existence of matters in extenuation that 
contributed to the applicant’s infractions and denial of re-
enlistment, she was found sufficiently fit for release from 
service and, in relative short order [CY 2000], was allowed to 
re-enter military service; again presumed fit, following a 
previous Board action.

The Medical Consultant opines the applicant’s worsening clinical 
status over time is likely representative of subsequent 
aggravating events, e.g., repeat assault in a DVA parking lot, 
albeit service connected, and is not representative of her 
fitness to serve during the period of active service that ended 
in Dec 98.  Thus, unless granting relief is based upon the 
concept of restitution or reparation for the alleged crime of 
rape in 1996, the fact that the applicant has been granted 
service connection for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder by the DVA 
and her condition now renders her unemployable, the Medical 
Consultant finds the evidence insufficient to justify an 
retroactive unfit finding and medical retirement from Dec 98. 

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel refutes virtually every point made by the OPR and 
Medical Consultant and argues that since the applicant’s 
assault, programs have been put in place to assist victims of 
sexual assault and ensure they do not meet the same types of 
injustices experienced by the applicant.  The fact that the 
procedures at the time of her assault were correctly followed 
with respect to her discharge should not prevent this Board from 
taking corrective action now, as these procedures resulted in an 
unjust result then.  Furthermore, the applicant contends that 
sexual assault terminated her military career.  Although it did 
not do so immediately, it was still the principal direct cause 
of her career’s demise.  The Medical Consultant’s opinion 
ignores the long-term effects of PTSD in this patient.  She was 
never the same service member she was before the rape, and today 
she is not the same woman she would be but for her rape.  The 
applicant tried to serve with honor following her trauma; 
however, she was unable to on a mental and emotional level.


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends denial 
indicating insufficient evidence that the applicant suffered 
from a mental disorder at any point during her discharge.  The 
Military Department, operating under Title 10, United States 
Code (U.S.C.), must base its actions upon evidence available at 
the “snap shot” in time of a Service member’s final military 
disposition.  Compensation for post-service development or 
progression of a medical condition is not, by law, rated by the 
Military Department.  It is the mission of the DVA, as seen in 
this case, to pick up where the Military Department leaves off.  
The Clinical Psychology Consultant notes that medical records 
contemporaneous with the applicant’s discharge in 1998 that 
would provide a “snap shot” from that point in time are lacking 
in this case.  Later military medical documentation does not add 
support to the applicant’s request as she denied current and 
historical mental health symptoms when assessed at Military 
Entrance Processing Station in 2000, and in 2003 she was noted 
to have attributed depressive symptoms to a thyroid problem.  
Unfortunately, a review of the applicant’s Enlisted Performance 
Reports also did not provide a compelling picture of an Airman 
with unlimited potential whose career was cut short by symptoms 
of a compensable mental disorder.  Regrettably, the Consultant 
opines insufficient evidence has not been provided to support 
the argument that the applicant suffered from a mental health 
condition so severe at the time of any of her discharges from 
any component of the Air Force that she met criteria for 
processing via the DES.  

A complete copy of the AFBCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant’s 
evaluation is at Exhibit G.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 11 Jun 15 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit H).  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 timely filed.

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, to include 
counsel’s rebuttal comments, 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 and Clinical Psychology Consultants and adopt their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error or injustice with respect to her 
Separation Program Designator code.  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 retroactive decision by the Air Force to grant the 
applicant a medical retirement.  While we are very sensitive to 
the applicant’s circumstances, neither the evidence of record, 
nor the documentation provided by the applicant are sufficiently 
persuasive for us to conclude that she should have been found 
unfit at the time of her separation.  The fact that she 
subsequently, successfully, served in the Air National Guard and 
Air Force Reserve undermines her argument that she was unfit for 
duty at the time of her release and, thus, should have been 
entitled to processing under the Disability Evaluation System 
(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 
member’s military career.  On the other hand, the Department of 
Veteran’s 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 persuasive 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought in this application.

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-2014-00730 in Executive Session on 16 Jul 15, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-00730 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Feb 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 14 Mar 14.
	Exhibit D   Memorandum, AFBCMR/Medical Consultant, dated 
	            9 Sep 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Oct 14.
Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, dated 21 Nov 14.
     Exhibit G.  Memorandum, AFBCMR/Clinical Psychology 
	Consultant, dated 28 May 15.
Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jun 15.