RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02889 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. Her separation authority AFR 39-10 be changed. 3. Her narrative reason for separation/separation code, Request for discharge in lieu of court-martial, be changed. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Through counsel she contends that the military services have worked hard to remove the stigma of mental health counseling and have educated service members on the warning signs of suicide and depression. Had her situation happened today, she would have been less reluctant to seek help for her emotional problems after undergoing a hysterectomy. So many years have passed since her discharge and it has been difficult to obtain complete records. A request from the National Personnel Records Center yielded her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, enlistment documents, Airman Performance Reports, an Article 15 and brief medical records. There is no record of court-martial preferral of charges or administrative separation in lieu of court- martial. In order to separate a service member in lieu of court-martial, the request must be based on the fact that charges have been preferred. Even if the government had evidence she committed the offense of drug abuse, dereliction of duty and failure to repair [sic]; it is unlikely today these offenses would have been disposed of at a court-martial. More likely, she would have received an Article 15 and an administrative separation. Based on her time in service, she would have had the right to an administrative separation board hearing. Given her mitigating circumstances and otherwise outstanding record, she would have likely been retained or received an honorable discharge. She served honorably for nine years before her discharge. She was married and raising her son with her new husband. In 1989, she was diagnosed with uterine cancer and underwent a hysterectomy. This was emotionally devastating and she mourned the fact that she could not have a child with her new husband. She began a downward spiral and turned to cocaine in a desperate attempt to self-medicate. She understands this was the wrong choice and accepts the decision cost her military career. Her husband states his concern for her safety and that of their son motivated him to turn her in to law enforcement. In hindsight, the punishment and the discharge helped her fully appreciate the dangers and pitfalls of becoming involved with drugs; a lesson she was able to pass on to her son. It is unclear from the record what course of action the military took. There is an Article 15 for dereliction of duty for not rescheduling a drug rehabilitation appointment. She remembers a command directed urinalysis and receiving an Article 15 for substance abuse, but does not remember court-martial charges being preferred or the discharge process. While awaiting discharge, she moved into an apartment with her son. She also remembers falling ill and being seen at a civilian medical facility. Upon returning to work, she was notified she would receive an Article 15 for being absent without leave. She reacted to the news by attempting to commit suicide in her first sergeants office by overdosing on a prescription pain reliever. The Air Force placed her in the hospital for observation and then transferred her to correctional custody at Quantico Marine Base until her separation. She does not remember requesting discharge in lieu of court-martial, only that she wanted to get out of confinement and back with her son. Shortly after being discharged she was diagnosed with HIV. The actions taken to discharge her with an other than honorable discharge were unjustly severe. Her records are insufficient to justify the actions taken and even if the discharge were warranted at the time, it has served its intended purpose. The discharge characterization is not indicative either of her character or her military service and represents only a brief period of time in an otherwise outstanding military and civilian career. She is the type of person the Air Force would be proud to call an airman. In support of her request, the applicant submits a legal brief, personal statement, character letters and documents from her master personnel records. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 July 1981. On 14 November 1989, the applicant’s commander preferred charges against her for violation of Article’s 86 and 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice. Specifically, the applicant was charged with five specifications of failing to go to her appointed place of duty, one specification of being absent without leave and one specification of failing to obey a lawful order. On 16 November 2012, under advisement of counsel, the applicant requested she be discharged in lieu of court-martial. The staff judge advocate concurred with her request on 12 December 1989. On 12 December 1989, the commander directed the applicant be separated with a character of service of under other than honorable conditions. Her narrative reason for separation was listed as request for discharge in lieu of trial by court- martial and the separation authority was AFR 39-10. On 12 December 2012, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days (Exhibit C). 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 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, or unduly harsh. Additionally, we do not find it would be in the interest of justice to upgrade the discharge 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. 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 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-2012-02889 in Executive Session on 12 February 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 June 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Dec 12.