RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00631 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect her characterization of discharge as general (under honorable conditions) rather than under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Whoever processed her DD Form 214 made an error as her Air Force Form 100, Request and Authorization for Separation, reflects she received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a copy of her Air Force Form 100. A copy of the applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 28 June 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic (E-1). She was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3) effective 28 October 2001. The applicant received a total of five letters of reprimand and one letter of counseling between February 2001 and September 2002 for numerous missed appointments and failures to go. She also lost her driving privileges for 30 days in January 2002 as a result of accumulating six or more traffic points in a six-month period of time. In addition, on 16 November 2001, the applicant received Article 15 punishment for striking another individual in the head, in violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); wrongfully using provoking words towards an armed forces policeman, in violation of Article 117, UCMJ; and for resisting being apprehended by armed forces police officers, in violation of Article 95, UCMJ. Her punishment consisted of forfeiture of $220 pay per month for two months suspended until 15 May 2002, and a reprimand. On 19 November 2002, the applicant received Article 15 punishment for wrongfully importing marijuana from the United States to Japan while on board an aircraft under the control of the armed forces; and, wrongfully using marijuana, both charges in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. Her punishment consisted of reduction in grade to airman basic with a new date of rank of 19 November 2002, and a reprimand. On 12 December 2002, the applicant was notified of her commander’s intent to recommend her for an UOTHC discharge as a result of the conduct which resulted in her receiving the Article 15 punishment imposed on 19 November 2002. The applicant acknowledged her commander’s intent and waived her rights to a hearing before an administrative discharge board and to submit statements in her own behalf. On 13 December 2002, after consulting counsel, the applicant submitted an unconditional waiver indicating she understood that if approved she may be discharged with a UOTHC discharge and be deprived of veteran benefits. She also indicated she understood the adverse nature of such a discharge and the possible consequences thereof. On 17 December 2002, her commander recommended the applicant be discharged with an UOTHC discharge without probation or rehabilitation under the provisions Air Force Personnel Directive 36-32, Military Retirements and Separations, and Air Force Instruction 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.54. On 24 January 2003, after two levels of legal review the case was found legally sufficient, the discharge authority accepted the applicant’s unconditional waiver and directed she be discharged with a UOTHC characterization of service without probation or rehabilitation. On 10 February 2003, the applicant was discharged from active duty with a UOTHC discharge. She served 2 years, 7 months, and 13 days on active duty. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an Investigation Report (Exhibit C). On 10 June 2011, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit comments about her post service activities and in response to the FBI Report (Exhibit F). As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states that after a review of the applicant’s personnel records, her DD Form 214 reflects the correct characterization of service as UOTHC. At the time of her separation, her Air Force Form 100 was completed incorrectly indicating a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Therefore, they have directed the form be corrected to reflect a UOTHC discharge. DPSOS indicates a member’s DD Form 214 is the official governing document that should be used for any military benefit or clarification of character of service. The Air Force Form 100 is used to out process an individual from their unit and for travel entitlements at the time of separation. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant has provided no evidence or facts warranting a change to her character of service. The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 April 2011, 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-00631 in Executive Session on 29 November 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-00631: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Feb 11, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. FBI Report. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 29 Mar 11. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Apr 11. Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Jun 11, w/atch. Panel Chair