RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02752 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable and his narrative reason for separation (Misconduct – Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions) be changed. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was informed by a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) representative that she could request an upgrade of her discharge to honorable. This would benefit her when applying for government jobs. She states she has matured and is an honorable responsible citizen. She is a notary public and has spent the last 8 years working at a financial institution in a management position. In support of her request, the applicant provides a DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 July 1986. On 27 December 1989, the applicant was notified by her commander of his intent to recommend that she be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-46. The specific reasons are as follows: a. The applicant did, on or about 31 January 1987, violate curfew. For this misconduct, she received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ. The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $172.00 and confinement for seven days. b. On 2 August 1988, the applicant was notified that there was a comm-out recall and to report to the emergency room. She failed to respond to the recall and failed to report to the emergency room. For this misconduct, she received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ. The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for one month, restriction to the limits of England AFB for 30 days and a suspended reduction in the grade to the rank of airman. c. On 14 September 1988, while on duty in the emergency room, the applicant reported erroneous medical results. d. On 30 September 1988, the applicant wrote a check to the Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) Open Mess in the amount of $150.00 to pay her club bill. The check was returned for non-sufficient funds. e. On 3 November 1988, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for a marked deterioration in her job performance, a lackadaisical attitude and lack of motivation in the performance of her duties and responsibilities. She was advised of her rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification. After consulting with counsel, the applicant elected not to submit statements in her own behalf. In a legal review of the case file, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge. On 4 January 1989, the discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and directed discharge with a general discharge. The applicant was discharged on 6 January 1989. She served 2 years, 5 months and 7 days on active duty. Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, West Virginia, was unable to identify with an arrest record on the basis of information furnished, dated 25 August 2010. On 23 February 1990, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request that her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (Exhibit B). _________________________________________________________________ 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. We note the applicant did not provide any information pertaining to her activities since leaving the service. If she were to submit post-service documentation, we would be inclined to reconsider her appeal as a matter of clemency. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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-2010-02752 in Executive Session on 15 March 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-02752 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 July 2010, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Record.