RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-00328
			COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to “honorable.”


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

A month before her discharge she was assaulted in her dorm.  She 
went to legal to press charges against her assailant.  However, 
her first sergeant convinced her to drop the charges by telling 
her the court system would make her the “bad guy.”  She was 
young and naïve and because of her need to be liked she dropped 
the charges.

The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider 
her untimely application because her commander told her she 
could get her discharge upgraded six months after her separation 
from the Air Force.  She is older now and has two children and 
would like her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge 
from Active Duty, to reflect that she was a good airman.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 12 August 1986, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air 
Force.

On 1 February 1988, her commander notified her that she was 
recommending she be discharged under the provisions of AFR 39-
10, Administrative Separation of Airmen for “Minor Disciplinary 
Infractions.”  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge notification, consulted with counsel and submitted a 
21 page statement for consideration.

On 8 February 1988, the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge 
legally sufficient.

On 9 February 1988, the discharge authority directed that she be 
discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge.  Probation and rehabilitation was considered and 
deemed inappropriate.

On 12 February 1988, the applicant received a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge.  She served one year, six 
months and one day on active duty.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation indicated a criminal history does not exist.

On 28 April 2014, 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, to include her 
rebuttal response, 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 warrant 
such an action.  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 20 November 2014, under the provisions 
of AFI 36-2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2014-
00328 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 January 2014.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Information Bulletin, 28 April 2014.