RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-01081 

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Expiration of Term of Service (ETS) be corrected to reflect   8 Nov 13, allowing her record to reflect that her discharge should be Honorable instead of Under Honorable Conditions (General).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her ETS was improperly changed to 23 Apr 14, to allow for execution of disciplinary actions.  Had she been correctly separated on       8 Nov 13 she would have received an Honorable discharge, rather than a General (Under Honorable Conditions).  Both the Office of the Judge Advocate General and her appointed Area Defense Counsel agree that her ETS should not have been adjusted because of the involuntary administrative hold.  She engaged with the military personnel flight (MPF) on several instances to get it reversed but it was not completed prior to her separation from active duty.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 9 Nov 09, with a 4-year enlistment and a projected ETS of 8 Nov 13.  On     24 Sep 13, the applicant requested a 3-month extension, changing her ETS to 8 Feb 14.

On 8 Nov 13, the applicant was adjudged by Special Court Martial, to having wrongfully used a Schedule I controlled substance.  She was reduced to Airman, fined $1,133 per month for 3-months, and confinement for 90 days; however, confinement was reduced to       70 days.

On 17 Jan 14, the commander notified the applicant of recommendation for discharge for drug abuse.

On 10 Mar 14, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, and was credited with 4 years,   1 month, and 22 days of active service, with 70 days lost due to confinement. 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP3ST recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  

The applicant’s 3-month extension, entered on 9 Nov 13, was valid as her court martial was still being processed. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3ST evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  

In accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, Paragraph 2.4, retention of airmen beyond ETS in anticipation of preferring charges is authorized.  The Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) determines what type of appropriate action is sufficient to authorize retention pending the preferring of charges.  The SJA requested extension of her ETS based on the court martial.

According to Master Personnel Records, on 6 Feb 14, the SJA submitted another request to extend the applicant’s ETS again as a result of the appellate review that took place after the court martial.  

Furthermore, the applicant was serving confinement from 12 Nov 13 to 20 Jan 14 and the appellate review did not conclude until 25 Feb 14.  The period of confinement is considered lost time.  In accordance with AFI 36-3208, Paragraph 2.3 entitled “Retention to Make Good Time Lost,” airmen who are unable to perform duty for one day or more for a reason in Title 10 U.S.C., section 972 are liable to make good the time lost.  

In the interim, while the applicant was on appellate review and serving in confinement, the commander decided to notify the applicant of his intent to recommend discharge.  The involuntary extension of the applicant’s ETS/DOS was the result of the court martial, subsequent appellate review, period of lost time resulting from confinement, and/or a combination of those factors, and not for the purpose of processing an involuntary discharge action.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 19 Apr 17 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  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 timely filed.

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 agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

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-2016-01081 in Executive Session on 11 Jul 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-01081 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Feb 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Excerpts from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3ST, dated 25 Oct 16.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 27 Oct 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Apr 17.
	
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.