RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00163 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: During the time period in question, the applicant was under a lot of stress due to personal problems. She attended counseling at the base hospital and indicated to the doctor that she had been sexually abused as a child. The doctor made her take the personality disorder test twice. She believes these issues had an effect on her military career. She further states that she was informed that she could receive an upgrade of her discharge within six months of her separation. In support of the applicant’s appeal, she provides an unofficial transcript and a copy of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 July 1980. 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 (Misconduct – Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions). The specific reasons for the commanders decision was the applicant had been counseled on seven occasions for various infractions including failing to properly maintain her dormitory room, failing to comply with AFR 35-10 uniform and appearance standards, unauthorized use of a government vehicle by her dependents, and dereliction of duty. She received two letters of reprimand for failing to comply with AFR 35-10 uniform and appearance standards and for leaving a weapon in a security police vehicle without securing it. Also, she received nonjudicial punishment on two occasions for dereliction of duty and for failing to go. The applicant was advised of her rights in the matter and after consulting with counsel the applicant elected to submit a statement on her own behalf. In a legal review of the case file, the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge. The discharge authority concurred with the recommendation and directed a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The applicant was discharged on 11 July 1983. She served 3 years and 11 months on active duty. On 18 April 1986, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request that her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded. They concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. There exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of 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. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, based on the evidence before us, we find no basis to grant clemency at this time. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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-2013-00163 in Executive Session on 24 October 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 March 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 2 3 4