RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04953

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

							HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was raped by a fellow airman and she should not have been 
punished for reporting a crime.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 29 June 1982, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.

According to a Medical Examination Report, dated 15 August 1984, 
the applicant reported a sexual assault.

On 11 October 1984, the applicant’s commander notified her that he 
was recommending she be discharged from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The 
specific reason for his action is:

      On or about 15 August 1984, the applicant did, with intent to 
deceive, make a false official statement in violation of the 
Article 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  Further, on 
22 September 1984, she failed to obey a lawful order of her first 
sergeant in violation of Article 92, UCMJ, for which she received 
Article 15 punishment.

      On or about 14 August 1984, she did wrongfully possess and 
knowingly use marijuana, in violation of the Article 112a, UCMJ, 
for which she received a letter of reprimand.

On 11 October 1984, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge notification, and on 29 October 1984, she indicated that 
she consulted with counsel and waived her right to submit 
statements.

On 7 November 1984, the Acting Staff Judge Advocate found the 
discharge legally sufficient.

In an undated letter, the discharge authority directed the 
applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable 
conditions) discharge.  Probation and rehabilitation was 
considered and deemed inappropriate.

On 9 November 1984, the applicant received a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge.  Her narrative reason for 
separation is “Misconduct:  Pattern Conduct Prejudicial to Good 
Order and Discipline.”  She served 2 years, 4 months and 11 days 
on active duty.

On 30 December 2014, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment 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 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, in the absence of any evidence related to the applicant’s 
post-service activities, there is no way for us to determine if 
the applicant’s accomplishments since leaving the service warrant 
such an action.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis 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-2014-04953 in Executive Session on 1 September 2015, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 December 2014.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 December 2014, w/atch.
1 2