RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03189 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of her discharge she was very young and did not realize or understand the seriousness of the situation or the consequences that would result from her actions. She has since matured and secured employment with the U.S. Postal Service. In support of her request, she provides a copy of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; letter of appointment with the U.S. Postal Service and letters of support. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 13 May 2003, the applicant entered active duty. On 29 Jul 2004, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was recommending that she be discharged from the Air Force with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge for a pattern of misconduct; specifically, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen. The specific reasons for the discharge recommendation include an Article 15 for submitting an inaccurate AF Form 988, Leave Request and Authorization; a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for being disrespectful and displaying contempt during a counseling session, an Article 15 for making a false statement that she was on her way to sick call and was placed on quarters, and conviction by a Summary Court-Martial (SCM) for switching price tags on a pair of shoes at the Army Air Forces Exchange Services, Base Exchange. On 2 Aug 2004, the applicant acknowledged the notification of recommendation for discharge and right to consult counsel. On 3 Aug 2004, the applicant conditionally waived her right to an administrative discharge board hearing provided the separation authority characterized her discharge no less than a general. She declined to submit matters in her own behalf. On 17 Aug 2004, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) found the case legally sufficient to support the basis for separation. The SJA recommended the applicant’s conditional waiver of an administrative discharge board hearing be accepted and she be given a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation based upon the nature of her misconduct. On 1 Sep 2004, the discharge authority approved the SJA’s recommendation. On 22 Sep 2004, she was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct.” She served 1 year, 3 months and 29 days on active duty. On 4 Mar 2014, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an opportunity to provide information pertaining to her activities since leaving the service (Exhibit E). In response to the request the applicant states that her military experience helped her accomplish more in life than she expected. Prior to her discharge, she did many unethical things and made it very difficult for those around her to handle her approach towards work, authority and Air Force values. These events ended her career in the military. Since then she has tried to piece her life back together. She resents the fact that she was not mature enough to understand the opportunity she was given by the military and has tried to excel and learn from her mistakes. She has been employed with the U.S. Postal Service for more than two years. She completed her Associate’s degree in Electronic Medical Records, was a Summa Cum Laude graduate and is pursuing her bachelor’s degree in Allied Healthcare while working full- time. She has obtained a position as a medical coder with the U.S. Navy and hopes to once again be a part of the Air Force. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. Based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority to include the characterization of discharge. The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices in the discharge processing. IAW AFI 36-3208, Paragraph 5.48.1., discharges arising from a pattern of misconduct should be characterized as UOTHC. However, under paragraph 5.48, if the circumstances are such that a UOTHC discharge is not warranted, a general discharge is appropriate. Since the applicant’s conduct did not involve any violence, use of force or the endangerment of a United States, military member, or other persons of such a serious nature, a general discharge was appropriate. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 19 Sep 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this 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, 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. In the interest of justice we considered upgrading the characterization of the applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, after considering her overall record of service and the post-service documentation provided by the applicant, we are not persuaded that an upgrade on this basis is warranted. Therefore, in view of the above and 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 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 Docket Number BC- 2013-03189 in Executive Session on 6 May 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentation was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Jun 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 21 Aug 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Sep 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Mar 2014, w/atch. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs. Panel Chair 1