RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02300 COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Based on her performance reports, numerous letters of superior performance, and the fact she was an Honor Graduate from Technical Training School her characterization of service should be upgrade to Honorable.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 17 Nov 81, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.
On 18 Dec 85, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for arriving 4 hours late to her duty station on two separate occasions.

On 9 Apr 86, the applicant received a LOC for arriving late to her duty station.

On 22 May 86, the applicant tested positive for cocaine during a urinalysis test.

On 21 Jul 86, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for the use of cocaine.

On 1 Aug 86, the applicant consulted a lawyer and accepted an Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, for being absent without leave (AWOL) a violation of Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. She was reduced in grade to airman first class and ordered to forfeit $250.00 per month for two months.

On 13 Aug 86, the applicant was notified by her commander, that he was recommending her discharge for drug abuse and minor

disciplinary infractions in accordance with AFR 39-10, Separation Upon Expiration of Term of Service, for Convenience of Government, Minority, Dependency and Hardship, Chapter 5, paragraphs 5-46 and 5-49c.

On 14 Aug 86, the applicant consulted legal counsel and waived her right to submit any statements on her behalf.

On 5 Sep 86, the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient.

On 12 Sep 86, the discharge authority carefully reviewed the facts of the case and determined that discharge was warranted. Probation and rehabilitation was considered and disapproved in this case.

On 17 Sep 86, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, and was credited with 4 years,
10 months, and 1 day of active service.
A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant on 8 Jun 15 for review and comment within 30 days. 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
1.	

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-2015-02300 in Executive Session on 8 Mar 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 May 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Jun 15.