RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04173 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to “Honorable.” APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She served honorably for three years and a few minor incidents caused her discharge. She has grown tremendously and would like to move forward with her life, which includes upgrading her discharge to honorable. The applicant believes that the Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider her untimely application because she has matured since her discharge and an upgrade would benefit her family. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 27 May 2003, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years. On 27 July 2006, her commander notified her that he was recommending she be discharged under the provisions of AFPD 36- 32, Military Retirements and Separations and AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.49. The specific reasons for his action were: On 24 July 2004, she was riding as a passenger in a vehicle with a fellow airman who was intoxicated. To complicate the matter, she was uncooperative and disrespectful with the Department of Public Safety Trooper and was charged with public intoxication. This is evidenced by a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated 28 July 2004. On 28 July 2004, she failed to report to her appointed place of duty. This is evidenced by an Article 15 dated 6 August 2004 and the establishment of an Unfavorable Information File. On 27 August 2004, she, as a minor, was in possession of alcohol. This is evidenced by the Vacation Action dated 2 September 2004. On 4 July 2006, she was involved in a domestic disturbance with her boyfriend resulting in physical altercation that led to her arrest by a local law enforcement officer. This is evidenced by an LOR dated 6 July 2006. On 12 July 2006, she was derelict in the performance of her duties when she removed her weapon belt after being told to return to her post. Furthermore, she failed to obey a direct order given to her by a noncommissioned officer. This is evidenced by an LOR dated 19 July 2006. On 27 July 2006, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification, consulted with counsel and on 31 July 2006, she submitted a statement in her behalf. On 3 August 2006, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge legally sufficient. On 4 August 2006, the discharge authority directed that she be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 10 August 2006, she received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. She served 3 years, 2 months and 14 days of active duty. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record. On 25 April 2013, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C), as of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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 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, in the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s post-service activities, there is no way for us to determine if the applicant’s accomplishments since leaving the service are sufficiently meritorious to overcome the misconduct for which he was discharged. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis 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 in Executive Session on 7 August 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2013-04173 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 August 2013. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, digitally signed 25 April 2014 1 2