RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-00215 

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She served honorably and her Article 15 does not define all of her military service.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 31 Mar 89.

On 28 Oct 94, the applicant was notified by her commander of his intent to recommend her discharge from the Air Force for Unsatisfactory Performance, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5-26d.  The reasons for this action were: 

a.  On 8 Feb 93, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failing to report to her appointed place of duty.

	b.  From 8 Mar 94 to 8 Jun 94, the applicant wrote a check that was returned for insufficient funds and failed to pay her phone bill totaling $300.00.

	c.  On 19 Aug 94, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failing to follow base housing guidelines by allowing personnel to reside in her residence.

	d.  On 26 Sep 94, the applicant received a LOC for failing to go to her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time.

	e.  On 4 Oct 94, the applicant’s commander issued her nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for dereliction in the performance of her duties from 8 Mar 94 to 8 Jun 94, by negligently spending her travel advance on unauthorized items.

On 1 Nov 94, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, consulted counsel and submitted statements in her behalf.

On 2 Nov 94, the case was found to be legally sufficient and on 7 Nov 94, the discharge authority approved the commander’s recommendation, directing the applicant’s administrative discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 10 Nov 94, the applicant received a general discharge, and was credited with 5 years, 7 months, and 10 days of total active service.   

On 23 Mar 16, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment 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 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.  We conclude, therefore, that the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.  In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, based on the evidence before us, the Board finds no basis to grant clemency at this time.  However, the Board would be willing to reconsider his appeal should he provide new and relevant information relative to his claim.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board finds no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

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-2016-00215 in Executive Session on 13 Jun 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				    , Panel Chair
					, Member
				 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jan 16, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Mar 16, w/atch.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.