RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01343

 						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be changed to a 
medical discharge.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She became mentally disabled while on active duty.  She was 
accused of misbehavior that she had no control over.  She was 
admitted twice into a behavioral unit and her discharge papers 
were served to her while she was in a mental institution.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rated her 100 percent 
disabled for mental illness. 

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 7 July 2009, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

On 25 October 2011, she was notified by her commander that he was 
recommending she be discharged for misconduct, minor disciplinary 
infractions In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-3208, Administrative 
Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.49.  The specific reasons for 
the recommendation include a Letter of Counseling (LOC) and Letter 
of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to go to her place of duty and 
making a false official statement, LOC for failure to go a medical 
appointment and Article 15 for being absent from duty without 
authority, dereliction in the performance of duties in that she 
failed to return phone calls and making a false official 
statement.  

On 25 October 2011, the applicant acknowledged the discharge 
recommendation, her right to consult counsel and submit statements 
in her own behalf.    
On 2 November 2011, the discharge authority approved the 
recommendation that she be discharged without probation and 
rehabilitation.   

On 4 November 2011, the applicant was discharged with service 
characterized as general (under honorable conditions) with a 
narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct (minor 
infractions).”   


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The applicant has 
not met the burden of proof of error or injustice that warrants 
the desired change of the record; however, the Board may consider 
changing her reason for discharge to “Secretarial Authority” based 
solely upon clemency.  

Addressing the applicant’s desire for a medical separation, the 
military Disability Evaluation System (DES), established to 
maintain a fit and vital fighting force, can by law, under 
10 U.S.C. 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 time of separation and not based on future occurrences.  Thus, 
in order for the applicant to be considered for a medical 
discharge, she must have had an illness or injury that resulted in 
a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and unfit finding by a Physical 
Evaluation Board (PEB).  In the case under review, it was the 
applicant’s disciplinary infractions that caused the termination 
of her career.  Her medical condition resulted from the 
disciplinary actions taken against her, as noted in the Mental 
Health (MH) summaries referring to her reduction in rank.  

If the applicant was concurrently the subject of an approved 
medical discharge and an involuntary administrative discharge, her 
case would be adjudicated by the Secretary of the Air Force 
Personnel Council (SAFPC).  The charge of SAFPC then would be to 
determine which basis for discharge warranted execution, 
administrative versus medical.  In conducting such a review, SAFPC 
would search for any causal or mitigating relationship between the 
disciplinary infractions and the medical condition.  In the case 
under review, the Medical Consultant found no such causal or 
mitigating relationship between the applicant’s infractions and 
the MH disorder that followed the disciplinary actions.  Major 
Depressive Disorder (MDD) resulted from the punitive actions 
taken.  Consequently, more likely than not, SAFPC would have 
recommended execution of the approved administrative discharge.

A complete copy of the BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at 
Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 28 November 2014 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit 
D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office. 


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends denial.  The 
materials supplied for this case reveal an airman with several 
minor disciplinary infractions who experienced depressive symptoms 
as a result of awareness that her career was likely coming to an 
end.  The Clinical Psychology Consultant found no nexus between 
her mental disorder and the behaviors leading to her discharge, 
nor did her condition require DES processing.  Thus, no error or 
injustice was found.  

A complete copy of the BCMR Psychology Consultant’s evaluation is 
at Exhibit E.  


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 18 June 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F).  
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 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 BCMR Medical and Clinical Psychology Consultants and adopt 
the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the 
applicant has failed to sustain her burden of proof that she has 
been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the interest of 
justice, we considered changing her narrative reason for 
separation based on clemency; however, after considering her 
overall record of service, the infractions which led to her 
administrative separation, and the short amount of time that has 
elapsed since her discharge in October 2011, we are not persuaded 
that a change to the narrative reason on this basis is warranted.  
Therefore, in the absence of 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-2014-01343 in Executive Session on 8 July 2015 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 March 2014, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 
4 November 2014.    
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 November 2014.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, BCMR Psychology Consultant, dated 
12 June 2015.    
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 June 2015.