RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01233 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She served her country with a stellar military record. Her 
Airman Performance Reports always exceeded the job expectations. 
She conducted herself with the utmost respect while serving in 
the Honor/Color Guard. She was selected and highly recommended 
for two special duty assignments and was awarded the Meritorious 
Service Medal for her dedication to duty. She does not believe 
that her lapse in judgment warranted such a severe punishment. 

 

The applicant does not provide any evidence in support of her 
appeal. 

 

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
served as a Health Services Management Support Supervisor and was 
progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6). 

 

On 8 October 1992, the applicant was notified that her commander 
preferred charges against her for forging two sets of Permanent 
Change of Station (PCS) orders for another airman and herself to 
obtain early releases from their term leases with a local 
landlord. On or about 8-23 October 1992, the applicant consulted 
with her defense counsel and subsequently submitted a request for 
discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions 
of Air Force Regulation 39-10, Chapter 4. Both of her commanders 
recommended the applicant’s request be approved, citing the fact 
that it was quite likely that the case would not result in a 
punitive discharge and that acceptance of a Chapter 4 discharge 
would be in the best interest of the Air Force. Both commanders 
recommended the approved discharge be characterized as general 
(under honorable conditions). On 27 November 1992, the Staff 
Judge Advocate recommended approval of the applicant’s request. 

 


On 28 November 1992, the discharge authority approved the 
applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of court-martial and 
directed she be discharged with a general (under honorable 
conditions) discharge. 

 

On 4 December 1992, the applicant was discharged from active duty 
with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. She 
served 14 years, 7 months, and 8 days on active duty. 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated that on the 
basis of the data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest 
record pertaining to the applicant. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. Furthermore, we do 
not find clemency is appropriate in this case since the applicant 
has not provided any evidence concerning her post-service 
activities. Based on the foregoing, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-01233 in Executive Session on 10 November 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 
 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-01233 was considered: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Mar 11. 

Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.