RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-02280 INDEX CODE:	110.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:	NONE HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She is requesting a change to her discharge for professional reasons. The narrative reason for separation "misconduct-pattern of minor disciplinary infractions" does not look well with employers and for acceptance to a university for a doctorate degree. She feels that a change in her military record would strongly reflect all her accomplishments and assist her with future ambitions both educationally and career wise. She has been gainfully employed in the local school system as a mathematics teacher. She is a leader and feels that her military record should reflect all that she has accomplished since her discharge which includes both a Bachelor's and Master's degree.

In support of her request, applicant provides a listing of employment verification numbers.

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 15 Jun 81, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of 4 years. She was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3), having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of
15 Dec 81.  She received three Airman Performance Reports closing
6 Jul 82, 6 Jul 83 and 10 Jan 84 in which the overall evaluations were 8, 7, 7, respectively, (9 being the highest rating).

On 21 Nov 83, 2 Dec 83 and 5 Dec 83, she received letters of counseling for failure to go to her place of duty.

On 25 Jan 84, the applicant received an Article 15, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment, for two instances (10 and 11 Jan 84) of failure to go.  She received a reduction to the grade of airman.

On 1 Mar 84, the applicant was notified of her commander's recommendation that she be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-46, for a pattern of minor disciplinary infractions. A general discharge was recommended. She was advised of her rights and consulted with counsel and waived her right to submit statements in her own behalf. In a legal review of the discharge case file, the assistant staff judge advocate found it legally sufficient and recommended her discharge from the Air Force with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 21 Mar 84, she was discharged after serving 2 years, 9 months, and 7 days on active duty.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states that the narrative reason for separation to include the characterization of service was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was sent to the applicant on
21 Nov 08 for review and comment within 30 days.	As of this date, this office has received no response.

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. After careful consideration of the applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we see no evidence that would warrant an upgrade of her characterization of service. Other than her own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the information in her discharge case file is
1.	
erroneous, that her substantial rights were violated, or that her commanders abused their discretionary authority. We noted the applicant's cited education accomplishments and employment history; however, we do not find this sufficient to warrant the approval of the requested relief. Should the applicant provide more expansive evidence pertaining to her post service activities, testimonials of friends and responsible citizens who know her, she may, of course, submit a request for reconsideration on the basis of clemency at a later time.

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- 2008-02280 in Executive Session on 24 Feb 09, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2008-02280 was considered:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 12 Jun 08.
Exhibit B.	Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 24 Oct 08. Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 08.