RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02115 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her general (under honorable conditions) character of service be 
upgraded to honorable. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

When she was on active duty she was “young and dumb” and did not 
respect her position and assignments as she should have. She 
was late to work on several occasions and was classified as 
absent without leave (AWOL) once when her driver got lost 
returning back to the Air Force base from a weekend in 
California. They were two hours late. Since she has grown up, 
she recognizes the error of her ways and respectfully requests 
the Board take this into consideration as they evaluate her 
request to upgrade the character of her discharge. 

 

The letters of recommendation she submits reflect her 
willingness to work and the respect she now has for her 
responsibilities. Even though she can no longer be a caregiver, 
she is on track to remain in the medical field taking into 
account her physical disabilities after a near fatal auto 
accident on 29 December 2010. She would like to continue her 
veteran status in a more positive light and also take part in 
veteran’s benefits. 

 

In support of her request the applicant submits letters of 
recommendation and a copy of a psychological evaluation dated 
22 August 2011. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

According to documents extracted from her military personnel 
records, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 
2 July 1990 and was progressively promoted to the grade of 
Airman (Amn), E-2, with a date of rank of 2 January 1991. 


 

On 14 August 1991, the applicant received a nonjudicial 
punishment in the form of an Article 15 for violation of Article 
86, Absence without Leave, for failure to go at the time 
prescribed to her appointed place of duty. Her punishment 
consisted of forfeiture of $75.00 per month for two months and a 
reduction to the grade of Airman Basic (AB), E-1, (suspended 
until 13 February 1992) after which time it would be remitted 
without further action unless sooner vacated. 

 

On 27 September 1991, the applicant’s suspended reduction to the 
grade of Airman Basic was vacated with a new date of rank of 
14 August 1991, as punishment for the offense of being derelict 
in the performance of her duties on 13 September 1991, in that 
she negligently failed to inspect two parachutes and helmets, as 
it was her duty to do. 

 

The applicant was released from active duty on 7 February 1992, 
and was credited with 1 year, 7 months, and 6 days of active 
duty service. 

 

On 3 December 2012, a request for information pertaining to her 
post-service activities was forwarded to the applicant for 
response within 30 days (Exhibit C). To date, this office has 
not received a 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, 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. In the 
interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based 
on clemency; however, there was no evidence submitted to compel 
us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. 
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 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 this application 
BC-2012-02115 in Executive Session on 23 January 2013, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 21 May 2012, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR dated 3 December 2012. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 
, Panel Chair 

, Member 

 , Member