RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01835
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While on active duty - she served her country honorably.  She states that she is a 40 percent disabled veteran.

In support of the applicant’s appeal, she provides a document from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 February 1989.

The applicant was notified by her commander of his intent to recommend her discharge from the Air Force under the provisions 
of AFR 39-10.  The specific reasons follow:

	  a.  Between 20 September 1989 and 26 January 1990, the applicant received numerous Letters of Reprimand (LORs) for 
failing to report and being derelict in the performance of her duties.  Also on 29 December 1989, she received a memorandum for 
record (MFR) for being derelict in the performance of her duties.

	  b.  Between 21 November 1989 and 14 February 1990, the 
applicant received numerous notification letters regarding 
delinquent accounts.




	  c.  The applicant received non-judicial punishment under 
Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for 
being derelict in the performance of her duties on or about 
16 February 1990.

She was advised of her rights in this matter and after 
consulting with counsel the applicant elected not to submit a 
statement on her own behalf.

In a legal review of the case file, the deputy staff judge 
advocate found the case legally sufficient and recommended 
discharge.  The discharge authority concurred with the 
recommendation and directed a general (under honorable 
conditions) discharge.  The applicant was discharged on 16 May 
1990.  She served 1 year, 3 months, and 16 days on active duty.

On 16 December 2013, a request for information pertaining to her 
post-service activities 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 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.  In the interest of 
justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, based on the evidence before us, we find no 
basis to grant clemency at this time.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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-2013-01835 in Executive Session on 28 January 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 April 2013, w/atch.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 16 December 2013.
2 3 4