RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00257 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her general (under honorable conditions) be upgraded to honorable. 2. Her narrative reason for separation of "Unsuitable, Apathy Defective Attitude-Evaluation Officer” be changed. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was singled out being the only Black American and standing up for what was right. Reporting things that were wrong to her commander caused her to be wrongfully judged. Her character of service and narrative reason for separation is an error and injustice. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the applicant's DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, on 1 Dec 78, she enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 5 Dec 80, the applicant was notified by her commander of his intent to recommend her discharge from the Air Force for Apathy, Defective Attitudes, or Inability To Expend Effort Constructively, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Personal Abuse of Drugs; Resignation or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service; and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program, Section A, Chapter 2, paragraph 2-4c, dated 1 Sep 66. The specific reasons for this action were a continued non-acceptable trend of arriving late to her appointed duty location, not reporting for work in the appropriate duty uniform, continued neglect of repeated counseling regarding her required assigned duties, and repeated negligence in the accomplishment of her duties. On 5 Dec 80, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification, and on 10 Dec 80, she consulted counsel and submitted statements in her behalf. On 23 Dec 80, the discharge was found to be legally sufficient and on 30 Dec 80, the discharge authority approved the commander's recommendation, directing the applicant's administrative discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 30 Dec 80, the applicant received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of "Unsuitable, Apathy Defective Attitude-Evaluation Officer" and was credited with 2 years and 30 days of total active service. On 24 Feb 15, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). 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-2015-00257 in Executive Session on 3 Sep 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Jan 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 15.