RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1999-01171
		INDEX CODE: 110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2B to 1.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant states that she was under a lot of stress from her husband who beat her and even though being under all that stress, she tried her best to keep going.  She states that she realizes that when you are 18 you do make mistakes.  She also states that being discharged taught her a lesson that she will never forget.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits several letters of recommendation and a letter from her ex-husband regarding the problems he caused her before her involuntary discharge.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 September 1987, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic.

The applicant was notified by her commander on 10 August 1989 that discharge action had been initiated against her for minor disciplinary infractions.  The commander indicated the specific reasons for the proposed discharge were that applicant had misconduct such as dereliction of duty, four instances of having a delinquent NCO Club account, disrespect toward a noncommissioned officer, failure to go, and two failures to obey a lawful order.  In addition, applicant’s record indicates she had received Article 15 punishment during December 1987 for failure to obey a lawful order by wrongfully being present in the dormitory area designated for the opposite sex without prior proper approval.  Through these administrative actions, she had ample opportunities to change her negative behavior.  Her misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  She was advised she had a right to consult counsel and the right to submit statements in her own behalf.  She indicated counsel had been made available to her and did submit a statement requesting that she be given an honorable discharge.  On 22 August 1989, the discharge authority reviewed the case and approved the recommendation for discharge for misconduct and directed the applicant be given an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

The applicant, while serving in the grade of airman first class, was discharged from the Air Force on 23 August 1989 under the provisions of AFR 39-10 (Misconduct – Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions) with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  She served 1 year, 11 months, and 23 days total active service.

The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied applicant’s request for an upgrade in her discharge on    1 February 1995.  The board found that neither evidence of record nor that provided by the applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety which would justify a change of discharge.  In accordance with policy, the applicant was advised of her right to submit an application to the AFBCMR.

A copy of the Air Force Discharge Review Board Brief is attached at Exhibit B.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, indicated on the basis of the data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the application and states that there are no errors or irregularities causing an injustice to the applicant.  The discharge complies with directives in effect at the time of her discharge.  The records indicate the member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 10 September 1999, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.	We find no impropriety in the characterization of applicant's discharge.  It appears that responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  Considered alone, we conclude the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.

4.	Consideration of this Board, however, is not limited to the events which precipitated the discharge.  We have a Congressional mandate which permits consideration of other factors; e.g., applicant's background, the overall quality of service, and post-service activities and accomplishments.  Further, we may base our decision on matters of inequity and clemency rather than simply on whether rules and regulations which existed at the time were followed.  This is a much broader consideration than officials involved in the discharge were permitted, and our decision in no way discredits the validity of theirs.

5.  Under our broader mandate and after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of applicant's case, we are persuaded that applicant has overcome the behavioral traits which led to the contested discharge and has been a productive member of society.  This is evidenced by her educational achievements and subsequent service in the Army National Guard.  We recognize the adverse impact of the discharge applicant received; and, while it may have been appropriate at the time, we believe it would be an injustice for applicant to continue to suffer its effects.  Accordingly, we find that an upgrade of the applicant’s characterization of service to honorable is warranted as a matter of equity and on the basis of clemency.

6.  Although we believe that the applicant’s characterization of service should be upgraded to honorable on the basis of clemency, we are not inclined to recommend that her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.  When members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and the circumstances at the time of their separation.  The applicant has provided no evidence showing that the assigned RE code is contrary to the governing regulations in effect at the time or that it was based on erroneous information.  Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request that her RE code be changed to a 1.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 23 August 1989, she was honorably discharged and furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 15 February 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 1 Feb 99, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	AFDRB Brief, dated 7 Mar 95.
	Exhibit C.	FBI Report.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 23 Aug 99.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Sep 99.

 

AFBCMR BC-1999-01171

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 23 August 1989, she was honorably discharged and furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.