RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01338 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable and her rank be restored. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was punished for making a sexual harassment complaint against her supervisor. As a result of her complaint, she was disciplined, reduced in rank, and discharged. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military personnel records indicate she enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 Feb 82. On 5 May 86, the applicant was notified by her commander of his intent to recommend her discharge from the Air Force for Misconduct—Minor Disciplinary Infractions, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen. The reasons for the action included financial irresponsibility, failure to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty, failure to perform assigned duties, and being apprehended for shoplifting. For these incidences of misconduct, she received three letters of counseling, a letter of reprimand, and two Article 15s. On 6 May 86, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and elected to submit statements in her behalf. On 23 May 86, the case was found to be legally sufficient and the discharge authority approved the commander’s recommendation on 29 May 86, directing the applicant’s administrative discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 13 Jun 86, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for Misconduct— Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions, and was credited with 4 years, 3 months, and 20 days of total active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial with respect to the applicant’s request to restore her previous grade, indicating the commander was acting within his authority when he imposed punishment reducing her to the grade of airman first class (E-3). The applicant received a letter of reprimand for shoplifting and an Article 15 for failure to go. Her punishment consisted of a suspended reduction to Airman (E-2), forfeiture of $50.00 per month for two months, and confinement to correctional custody. She was promoted to Sergeant (E-4), effective 1 Aug 85. However, on 22 Apr 86, she received another Article 15 for failure to go. She was reduced to the rank of airman first class (E-3) and ordered to forfeit $75.00 a month for two months. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. While the applicant alleges injustice in that she says she made a complaint of sexual harassment and, as a result, ended up disciplined and discharged from the Air Force, she does not include any mention of said complaint. On the other hand, the record does include sufficient support for the applicant’s administrative discharge from the Air Force as there is documentation of numerous offenses committed by the applicant, which include shoplifting and writing bad checks. The applicant’s Article 15s are also included in the personnel record and both of these actions were shown to have been processed correctly and the applicant’s rights were protected throughout the process. The applicant has provided no evidence to support her request. The Article 15 actions were found to be legally sufficient and she had the opportunity to present extenuating or mitigating evidence to her commander as part of those proceedings. The commander was in the best position to carefully weigh all the evidence, make informed findings of fact, and arrive at a suitable punishment. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicant’s request for her discharge to be upgraded to honorable, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge, to include her 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 applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 5 Oct 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F). ________________________________________________________________ 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 an 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 Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Additionally, we considered upgrading the applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s activities since leaving the service, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. However, should the applicant decide to submit documentation related to her post-service activities, we may be inclined to reconsider her request based on new evidence. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to grant any of the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2011-01338 in Executive Session on 19 Jan 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Apr 11. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 16 May 11. Exhibit D. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 6 Jul 11. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 19 Sep 11. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Oct 11. Panel Chair