RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04988 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general, under honorable conditions, discharge be upgraded to honorable. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the age of 17, she was discharged for minor infractions which should not have been career ending. She feels the type of discharge she received was unjust and that she is in a better position now to request the upgrade. She believes her accomplishments since that time would overturn the current discharge characterization. In support of her application, she provides copies of her Doctorate Diploma, professional biography, transcripts from various schools and a personal statement. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 4 Apr 88, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 14 Sep 88, she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for violating a lawful general regulation by having a guest in her dorm room after visitation hours. An Unfavorable Information File (UIF) was created. She acknowledged receipt the same day. On 27 Dec 88, she received an LOR/UIF and was placed on the control roster for having an unauthorized guest in her room after visitation hours. On 2 Aug 90, she received an Article 15, Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failure to obey a lawful order. She was reduced in rank to Airman. She acknowledged receipt on 13 Aug 90. On 3 Aug 90, she received a referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for receiving an overall rating of “2 – marginal performer, not recommended for promotion at this time.” On 22 Aug 90, she was notified her squadron commander was recommending she be administratively discharged due to misconduct for which she received verbal and written counseling as well as an Article 15. She acknowledged receipt the same day. On 29 Aug 90, her squadron commander recommended she be discharged for misconduct due to minor disciplinary infractions. She acknowledged receipt the same day, indicating she was providing a written statement for consideration. On 13 Sep 90, the Staff Judge Advocate found the administrative discharge action legally sufficient. On 19 Sep 90, she was notified the administrative discharge action initiated by her commander under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Airman Separation Manual, chapter 5, section H, paragraph 5-46 was approved by the discharge authority. On 10 Oct 90, the applicant received a general, under honorable conditions, discharge for misconduct – pattern of minor disciplinary infractions. She was credited with 2 years, 6 months, and 7 days of active service. On 9 Dec 91, the Discharge Review Board notified the applicant her request to upgrade her discharge to honorable was denied, concluding the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Clemency Information Bulletin was forwarded to the applicant on 15 May 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). The applicant provided copies of transcripts along with multiple character reference letters in support of her application (Exhibit D). 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 character reference letters, 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 on the basis of clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient for us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis at this time. In this respect, we note that Congress' intent in setting up the Veterans Benefits Program was to express thanks for Veterans' personal sacrifice, separations from family, facing hostile enemy action, and suffering financial hardship. It would be unfair to all those who served honorably to extend those Veterans benefits to someone who committed acts of misconduct while on active duty. For these reasons, this Board very carefully weighs requests to upgrade the character of a discharge and, in doing so, carefully considers whether the impact of an applicant's contributions to his or her community since leaving the service are substantial enough for us to conclude they overcome the misconduct which precipitated the discharge and whether or not an upgrade of the discharge would create a larger injustice to those who served under honorable conditions and earned the characterization of service the applicant seeks. A key component of this determination is whether or not an applicant has a criminal record and in this case, the applicant provided her arrest record from the Federal Bureau of Investigations indicating one arrest in 1995 for which there was no conviction. While the applicant has provided a number of supporting documents highlighting her successful career in medicine as well as statements from friends and colleagues attesting to her admirable character, we cannot conclusively determine if her activities since leaving the service outweigh the misconduct which precipitated her discharge. Therefore, in view of the above, we find no basis 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 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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04988 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Dec 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Dec 14. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 May 15. 1 2