RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02483 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct” be changed. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She requested separation and was not forced out. She was treated unfairly by her first sergeant and commander. During this time she was going through divorce proceedings. In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy of her DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 26 Jun 1996, the applicant entered active duty. On 21 May 1999, the applicant was notified by her commander that he was recommending her for discharge from the Air Force for misconduct, minor disciplinary infractions, with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. Specifically, failure to obey a direct order given by her first sergeant, willful disobeyance of a lawful order on multiple occasions and an Article 15 for violation of a no-contact order. On 21 May 1999, the applicant acknowledged the discharge notification, her right to consult counsel and to submit statements on her own behalf. On 1 Jun 1999, the staff judge advocate found the discharge recommendation legally sufficient. The discharge authority approved the discharge recommendation. On 9 Jun 1999, the applicant was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct.” She served 2 years, 11 months and 14 days. In 2008, the applicant submitted a DD Form 293 requesting her discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 8 Oct 2009, the Discharge Review Board (DRB) concluded the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority but found the applicant was not provided full administrative due process. In view of the findings, the DRB concluded the overall quality of the applicant’s service was more appropriately reflected by an honorable discharge under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. Based on the documentation on file in her master personnel records, the discharge to include her narrative reason for separation was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge processing. In Accordance With (IAW) Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, a general discharge is appropriate when significant negative aspects of the airman’s conduct or performance of duty outweighs the positive aspects of the airman’s military record. The applicant’s misconduct in this case clearly outweighs the positive aspects of her service. Her commander stated before recommending the discharge that every effort was made by the applicant’s supervision to rehabilitate the applicant and she was afforded an opportunity to overcome her deficiencies. She received numerous verbal and written counseling sessions, Letters of Reprimands (LOR) and an Article 15 due to her misconduct on and off duty. The applicant’s incidents of misconduct disrupted good order, discipline and morale within the military community; hence the discharge was appropriate. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 5 Aug 2013, the applicant was provided a copy of the Air Force evaluation for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has not received a response (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice warranting relief. After a thorough review of the facts and circumstances in this case, we are persuaded the applicant has suffered an injustice. We note that DPSOR recommends denial stating she received LORs and an Article 15 due to her misconduct on and off duty. However, AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, states that an honorable discharge is appropriate when the quality of the airman's service generally has met Air Force standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty or when a member's service is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate. Therefore, since the DRB determined the applicant’s service was “honorable,” we believe that a discharge due to misconduct mischaracterizes the applicant’s service. For this reason and to prevent a further burden with the stigma associated with her narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct,” we recommend that it be changed to “Secretarial Authority.” Accordingly we recommend the record be corrected as set forth below. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that at the time of her 9 Jun 1999 discharge, the narrative reason for her separation was Secretarial Authority with a separation code of “JFF.” _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-02483 in Executive Session on 25 Mar 2014 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentation was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 May 2013, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Military Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 10 Jul 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 2013. Panel Chair