RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-04092

							COUNSEL: NONE

							HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Under Other than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an Honorable discharge.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her discharge was inequitable and improper, based on conjecture and one person’s statement that she tried to distribute cocaine.  She was bullied and harassed, and it was indicated if the case went to trial she would be thrown into prison.  She was not afforded the opportunity to see the Request for Discharge which stated there was no real evidence against her, and in all likelihood she would be acquitted if she went to trial.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Air Force airman first class.

On 15 Apr 86, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court martial.  

On 18 Apr 86, the commander recommended the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court martial be approved.  The charges against her included wrongful use of marijuana, wrongful use of cocaine, and wrongful attempt to distribute cocaine.

On 30 Apr 86, the discharge action was found legally sufficient and the discharge authority approved the recommendation on 30 Apr 86.  

On 1 May 86, the applicant was furnished a UOTHC discharge.

A request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant on 5 Dec 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C).  

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits D and E.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denying the application.  

The Staff Judge Advocate’s legal review does note that the evidence in her case was based primarily on her own confession to Office of Special Investigations, and that an acquittal was the likely outcome of a trial.  However, the applicant had the advice of her own legal counsel.  While the applicant now challenges the strength of evidence in her case, the opportunity to do so would have been at trial in 1986.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.  

AFPC/JA recommends denying the application.  

The applicant alleges she was “bullied and harassed” into submitting the request for discharge in lieu of trial by court martial.  However, the applicant had the benefit of a military defense counsel.  Her signature on her request for discharge attested she was afforded counsel, and understood her rights, options, and consequences.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 6 Oct 17 for comment (Exhibit F), but has received no response. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES:

1.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an injustice.  The Board remains unconvinced the evidence presented demonstrates an injustice.  It appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the commander’s discretion.  Nor was the discharge unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offenses committed.  In the interest of justice, the Board considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, given the evidence presented, the Board finds no basis to do so.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:  

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:  

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5., considered Docket Number BC-2016-04092 in Executive Session on 5 Jun 18:

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:  Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 5 Apr 16.
Exhibit B:  Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:  AFBCMR letter, w/atch, dated 5 Dec 16.
Exhibit D:  Advisory opinion, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 22 May 17.
Exhibit E:  Advisory opinion, AFPC/JA, dated 25 May 17.
Exhibit F:  Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 6 Oct 17.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.