RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00884 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She served her country and was discharged for medical reasons. 
She was involved in a dispute with two other servicemembers and 
decided to take the general discharge. She was advised that she 
could request an upgrade of her discharge after six months. She 
served with honor and would “have loved to have had an 
opportunity to retire.” 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant was notified of an administrative discharge board 
hearing, on 25 Apr 85, for misconduct, specifically, due to an 
investigation of allegations that the applicant was involved in 
homosexual acts with an adult female. Specifically, on or about 
(o/a) 10 Feb 85, through a security police report, it was 
learned of the applicant’s involvement in homosexual acts with 
an adult female on at least four occasions; and o/a 7 Jul 84, 
the applicant left without authority her appointed place of 
duty, and o/a 8 Jul 84, the applicant failed to go to her 
appointed place of duty. The discharge authority recommended 
the applicant receive an honorable discharge; however, the 
discharge process was deferred pending the outcome of a dual-
action process on 9 Sep 85. 

 

The applicant was also charged with making false official 
statements and filing false travel vouchers for per diem and 
travel pay. On 2 Oct 85, charges were preferred and on 9 Oct 85 
they were referred to trial by special court-martial. On 11 Dec 
85, the applicant submitted her request for discharge in lieu of 
trial by court-martial through her counsel. 

 


On 6 Jan 86, the discharge authority directed an under other 
than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. However, the 
discharge was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a dual-
action process. 

 

The applicant was processed for a medical determination. The 
Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) recommended a disability 
discharge with a compensable rating of 20 percent. Her case was 
forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council 
(SAFPC) for review and disposition, and they recommended the 
applicant be discharged with a general discharge. 

 

The applicant was discharged, on 6 Nov 86, by reason of physical 
disability with a compensable disability rating of 20 percent 
and entitlement to severance pay, with service characterized as 
general (under honorable conditions). 

 

On 8 Sep 11, the applicant was invited to provide additional 
evidence pertaining to her activities since leaving the service 
(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 during the discharge process. 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. The applicant was 
provided due process, including having her case considered by a 
medical evaluation board, resulting in a disability separation, 
with severance pay. In addition, considering her overall record 
of service and the events which led to her separation, we are 
not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of her 
discharge is warranted on the basis of clemency. Therefore, in 
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon 
which to recommend granting the relief sought. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 
that 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-2011-00884 in Executive Session on 13 October 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Feb 11. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Sep 11, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair