RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03673 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She is an honorable veteran and would like her discharge upgraded 
to receive more benefits. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant commenced her enlistment in the Regular Air Force 
on 1 Apr 80. 

 

On 15 Sep 82, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was 
recommending her discharge for misconduct – frequent involvement 
of a discreditable nature. The reasons for action included the 
following offenses: failure to go, use of reproachful words, 
insulting and disrespectful language, reckless operation of a 
government vehicle, failure to meet a scheduled appointment, and 
operating a vehicle with expired license plates, for which she 
was punished three times under Article 15, a letter of reprimand 
(LOR), letter of counseling (LOC), and a traffic citation. 

On 30 Sep 82, she acknowledged receipt of the action. 

 

On 29 Sep 82, an evaluation officer was appointed to evaluate the 
applicant’s case. On 1 Oct 82, after interviewing the applicant 
and reviewing her records and case file, the evaluation officer 
recommended the applicant be furnished a general discharge 
without probation and rehabilitation. 

 

On 13 Oct 82, the case was found to be legally sufficient and 
recommended the applicant be discharged with a general discharge 
without probation and rehabilitation. 

 



On 18 Oct 82, the discharge authority directed the applicant be 
furnished a general discharge. She was so discharged on 
18 Oct 82 and was credited with 2 years, 6 months, and 18 days of 
active service. 

 

On 19 Feb 13, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and 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 an 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 her service and narrative reason 
for separation was contrary to the provisions of the governing 
regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses 
committed. In the interest of justice, we also considered 
upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, in the 
absence of any evidence related to her post-service activities, 
we are not inclined to recommend granting the requested relief on 
that basis. 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 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-2012-03673 in Executive Session on 11 Apr 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Aug 12. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Military Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Feb 13, w/atch.