RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03735 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She submitted a DD Form 293, Application for Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces, for upgrade of her general discharge but it was denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 19 Jun 14. She requests reconsideration of her request as she would like to use the GI Bill to attend college and better herself. Her discharge was only for minor infractions and it does not reflect the type of person she is. In support of her request, she provides letters of support and certificates of recognition. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 5 Jun 07, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 10 Sep 10 she was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct (minor infractions),” and Reentry (RE) code “2B” which denotes “Discharged under General or other than honorable conditions.” AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. Based on a review of the master personnel records, the discharge, to include the Separation Program Designator (SPD), narrative reason for separation, and character of service, was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. DPSOR did not find any evidence of any errors or injustices in the discharge processing. The applicant was notified by her commander on 18 Aug 10 he was recommending her for discharge from the Air Force for misconduct, specifically, minor disciplinary infractions based on the following: On or about 4 May 09, she failed to progress and meet required deadlines in her Career Development Course (CDC). As a result, she received a LOC. On or about 1 May 09 and 2 May 09, with intent to deceive, she made multiple official statements which were false and were then known by her to be false for which she received an Article 15, UCMJ. On or about 14 Oct 09, she failed to show at her assigned place of duty for physical training at the assigned time for which she received a LOC. On or about 21 Oct 09, she failed to complete squadron physical training requirements as she was instructed to do. As a result, she received a Letter of Counseling (LOC). On or about 25 Nov 09, she missed a mandatory medical appointment for which she received a LOR. On or about 22 Apr 10, she was derelict in the performance of her duties in that she failed to complete the end-of-day checklist for which she received a LOR. On or about 27 Apr 10, she was derelict in the performance of her duties in that she failed to complete her end of day duties as assigned for which she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR). On or about 26 Jun 10, she failed to obey a lawful general regulation by wrongfully operating a government owned off-road vehicle for unofficial purposes for which she received an Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and was afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and submit statements in her own behalf. The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support the separation and the discharge authority approved the recommendation of discharge. The record shows that the applicant was afforded several opportunities to overcome deficiencies in her conduct but with no success. The commander concluded the unit had exhausted all options to rehabilitate the applicant; however, she repeatedly failed to conform to Air Force standards of conduct. Based on this, discharge was the next option. A complete copy of the DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the application on 23 Dec 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a response. 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 agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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-2014-03735 in Executive Session on 13 May 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03735 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Sep 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 23 Oct 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Dec 14.