RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-02884

	COUNSEL: NONE
  	
	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In a detailed brief, the applicant explains the events that occurred when she was ordered to give a urine specimen.  She complied by giving the urine specimen; however, the Officer in Charge (OIC) of the Clinical Laboratory; Base Urine Testing Program Monitor, (a major) poured the specimen out and ordered her to give another sample, stating that it was not properly collected.  After drinking lots of water, coffee, and coke, she could not manage to provide another urine sample possibly due to shy bladder.  She informed her supervisor that her son was in San Diego alone.  Her supervisor asked her for a ride to her car and told her she could leave to see about her son.  Her supervisor indicated that she would arrange for her to return the next day.  

The base commander recommended she receive a general discharge; however, the 12th AF JA strongly recommended to the 12th AF/CC that she receive an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge, based on a letter received from Mr. J who made false statements on an AF Form 1169, Witness Statement, as a way to get even with her for putting him out of her home on 2 Jul 85.  These falsified discrepancies led to her discharge.

In support of her request, the applicant provides character reference letters, copies of her Cosmetologist License, Associate Degree Diploma in Science for Medical Assisting (Magna Cum Laude), Certified Phlebotomy Technician and Certified Medical Assistant certificates.  She also provides a copy of the discharge package, witness statement and various other documents associated with her request. 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to AF Form 1169, Statement of Witness, dated 12 Jul 85.  The witness stated the main reason he wanted to be interviewed was to receive his property from the applicant whom he had once lived with.  He indicated they were old lovers from high school and discussed other events that led up to an argument/fight.  The applicant also alleged the applicant was using cocaine. 
 
On 31 Jul 85, the applicant was directed by her commander to report to a major at the hospital on 1 Aug 85, for a full screening urinalysis with her supervisor.

According to DD Form 458, Charge Sheet, dated 4 Sep 85, the applicant disobeyed a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer to stay at the hospital until she had collected a urine specimen.  

According to AF Form 65, Transmittal of Court-Martial Charges, dated 4 Sep 85, the applicant disobeyed an order to remain in the hospital to provide a urine sample. It also states she was a suspected drug user and her duty performance as a recruiter had been sporadic with the most recent production results being mediocre.  Her attitude was favorable up to the point of being directed to provide a urine sample; then she became defiant and disobeyed the order of the lab officer by leaving the hospital.  The AF Form 65 states, provided drug abuse is confirmed, rehabilitation was not recommended.  It also indicates the applicant’s character of service prior to the offense was good. 

On 5 Sep 85, the applicant requested to be discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial.  She acknowledged that she understood if the request was approved, she might be discharged under other than honorable conditions.

On 6 Sep 85, the applicant was notified of her commander’s intent to recommend that she be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFR 39-10, Chapter 4, for failing to obey a lawful order issued by a superior commissioned officer.  The commander stated if the request for discharge was approved, he recommended the applicant be furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  The commander stated the offense committed was serious and was a definite departure from the behavior and conduct of a military member.  However, the commander stated the only offense the ten-year technical sergeant (applicant) had committed was the one for which she was being charged.  Therefore, the commander respectfully submitted that the one incident was not sufficient to warrant characterizing her total military service as under other than honorable.  Examination of her total military record revealed excellent performance of duty and honorable service prior to this incident. Therefore, he urged that the discharge.be characterized as a general discharge (under honorable conditions). 

On 9 Sep 85, the Judge Advocate (JA) concluded the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial complied with AFR 39-10, Chapter 4.  The JA concurred with the commander’s recommendation that a general discharge be issued.  JA stated it was likely that the applicant would receive a light sentence when the crime, its circumstances and her records were balanced against each other.  A bad conduct discharge was unlikely.  If this had occurred, an AFR 39-10 discharge board would have been necessitated based on her military conviction.  The JA stated there was no guarantee the proceeding would have resulted in discharge.  Therefore, JA opined, the best interest of the Air Force and society would be served by having the case disposed of by discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

On 9 Sep 85, the Combat Support Group commander (CSG/CC) concurred with the JA recommendation.  He recommended the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trail by court-martial be accepted.  He also recommended the discharge authority direct her separation with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. 

On 10 Sep 85, the 12th AF/JA agreed that the applicant’s request for discharge was appropriate. However, he indicated an under other than honorable conditions discharge was appropriate to the case.  The 12th AF/JA stated the offense involved a technical sergeant identified as being a cocaine abuser, engaging in willful disobedience to thwart legitimate efforts by her commander to confirm or negate the allegation.  JA states the applicant could have been charged with multiple offenses of cocaine abuse, based upon a sworn statement from another individual.  JA recommended the commander direct the applicant be separated pursuant to her request under AFR 39-10, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

On 10 Sep 85, the 12th AF/CC directed the applicant be separated under the provisions of AFR 39-10, pursuant to her request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He also directed the applicant be issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

On 13 Sep 85, the applicant received an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with her separation indicates she served 1 year, 8 months and 9 days of active service.  It also reflects 6 years, 4 month and 7 days of prior active service and 2 years, 5 months and 3 days of prior inactive service.  Her narrative reason for separation is “Request for Discharge in Lieu of Court Martial.”  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF CLEMENCY BULLETIN.  The Board sent a copy of the Clemency Bulletin to the applicant on 25 Oct 17 for comment (Exhibit C), but has received no response.  

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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 the Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion the applicant is the victim of an injustice.  First, the Board notes that it was the intent of the applicant’s commander, staff judge advocate and the combat support group commander that her service be characterized as general (under honorable conditions).  The commander indicated that the one incident was not sufficient to warrant characterizing her total military service as under other than honorable.  The commander indicated that an examination of her total military record revealed excellent performance of duty and honorable service prior to the incident under review.  The commander strongly recommended that the applicant’s discharge be characterized as general (under honorable conditions).  However, the discharge authority disagreed and directed the applicant be discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  Second, although the standards for drug use have not changed in the military (since drug use is still illegal), there has been a change in the trend of the forum choice in similarly-situated cases.  Thus, it is less likely that if the applicant engaged in the same misconduct today, she would be subject to court-martial charges.  It is for these reasons that the Board recommends an upgrade.  The Board considered upgrading the applicant’s discharge to honorable; however, based on the evidence presented, the Board does not believe it is warranted.  Further, the Board did not find the applicant’s narrative regarding the incident itself, or her claim for clemency, persuasive; the Board is not upgrading on that basis.  Accordingly, the Board recommends her records be corrected to the extent indicated below. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 13 September 1985, she received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge with a narrative reason for separation of “Secretarial Authority,” and a separation code of “JFF.”

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-2017-02884 in Executive Session on 30 May 18:

, Panel Chair  
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted to correct the record as recommended.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 17 Jun 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Clemency Bulletin, dated 25 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.