RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02897

					COUNSEL:  NONE

					HEARING DESIRED:  YES 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

One verbal incident caused her to lose two stripes.  She was 
young and naïve, and did not know her legal rights.  She has 
been denied the use of her veteran status for home loans, 
discounts, and investments.  She did not dishonor her country 
and never had any serious offenses during her enlistment.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
26 Jun 80.

On 29 Feb 84, the applicant was notified by her commander of his 
intent to recommend a general discharge for a pattern of 
misconduct – pattern of conduct prejudicial to good order and 
discipline under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative 
Separation of Airmen.  The basis for the action was as follows:

	a.  On or about 2 Feb 82, the applicant failed to go to her 
appointed place of duty without authorization.  For this offense 
she was reduced to the grade of airman (E-2) (suspended until 
1 Aug 82), forfeiture of $50 per month for two months, and 30 
days extra duty.

	b.  On or about Jun 83, the applicant wrongfully used 
marijuana.  For this offense she was reduced to the grade of 
airman first class (E-3) and forfeiture of $100.

	c.  On 3 Feb 84, the applicant used disrespectful language 
toward a non-commissioned officer (NCO) and failed to obey a 
lawful order issued by a NCO.  For this offense she was reduced 
to the grade of airman basic (E-1) and forfeiture of $150.

On 6 Mar 84, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, 
consulted with legal counsel and waived her right to submit 
statements on her own behalf.

On 27 Mar 84, the action was found to be legally sufficient and, 
on 30 Mar 84, the discharge authority concurred with the 
commander’s recommendation.

On 3 Apr 84, the applicant was furnished a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge, and was credited with three 
years, nine months, and eight days of active service.   

On 10 Apr 86, the applicant appeared before the Discharge Review 
Board (DRB) with counsel.  The Board denied the applicant’s 
request to upgrade her discharge and concluded that the 
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the 
discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was 
provided full administrative due process.

On 1 Aug 14, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 
30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office (Exhibit C).  


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 she 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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material 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-2014-02897 in Executive Session on 22 Apr 15, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jun 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Aug 14.