RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00520 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. Her DD Form 214 be changed to reflect her maiden name (England). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was never found guilty of any criminal offense. She was young and socialized with the wrong people. She has used the name England except for the brief time she was married. She is now divorced and would like her maiden name reflected on her records. In support of her request, the applicant provides DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States, DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and copies of her marriage certificate, divorce decree, order sealing her criminal record and other associated personal records. Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 18 Dec 80, the applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force. She was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class having assumed the grade effective and with a date of rank of 18 Dec 81. On 15 Aug 84, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was recommending her discharge from the Air Force for misconduct (civil conviction.) The specific reason for the discharge action was she pled guilty to the offense of robbery. Her commander advised her of her rights in this matter. On 17 Aug 84, she acknowledged receipt of the notification for discharge and after consulting with legal counsel she submitted statements in her own behalf. On 12 Sep 84, the staff judge advocate reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. On 28 Sep 84, the discharge authority directed discharge with a general discharge. The applicant was discharged on 2 Oct 84. She served 3 years, 9 months and 15 days on active duty. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provided a copy of an Investigative Report, which is at Exhibit C. On 16 Oct 84, the applicant submitted a request to have her narrative reason for separation changed and her military records be given a complete review. On 20 Mar 85, the Board considered and denied the request (See Exhibit B). On 27 Feb 08, AFPC/DPSS informed the applicant that based on the information in her records her last name was correct at the time of discharge and her military records cannot be changed after the fact. On 11 Apr 08, the applicant requested her case be administratively closed. On 29 Apr 08, the AFBCMR staff requested the applicant provide documentation concerning her activities since leaving military service. On 28 May 08, the applicant’s case was administratively closed per her request. On 17 Apr 09, the Board staff forward a copy of the investigative report to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. On 30 Apr 09, the applicant requested that her case be administratively closed. On 6 May 09, her case was administratively withdrawn per her request. In a letter dated 13 Aug 09, the applicant requested her case be reopened and submitted copies of her college transcripts, training certificates, resume’ and character references. Her complete request, with attachments, is at Exhibit N. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states the applicant contends her discharge should be upgraded because she was not found guilty of any criminal offense and the records were later sealed. She did enter a plea of guilty and was given seven years probation by the court. A finding of guilty was not required for discharge under the governing directive and the fact that her records were sealed after her discharge from military service does not negate the basis of the discharge action as it was applied at the time of her separation. Based on the documentation on file in the applicant's military personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority. HQ AFPC/DPSOS complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. HQ AFPC/DPSS recommends denial. DPSS states the governing Air Force Instruction allows changes to prior service members’ data if the recorded data error was made by the Air Force at the time of or during the enlistment. The applicant's name was correctly recorded at the time of her discharge. HQ AFPC/DPSS complete evaluation is at Exhibit L. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant 18 Apr 08 and 20 Mar 09, for review and comment within 30 days. 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. After a thorough review of the evidence and the applicant’s complete submission, it is the Board’s opinion that the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the commander's discretionary authority. The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of her service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. With regard to the applicant’s request that her DD Form 214 be changed to reflect her maiden name, the applicant has not provided evidence that would lead us to believe her last name was not correctly recorded at the time of discharge. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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-2008-00520 in Executive Session on 12 Nov 09 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, 25 Jan 08 & 24 Feb 09, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. FBI Investigative Report. Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOS, 28 May 08. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Apr 08. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Apr 08. Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 29 Apr 08, w/atch. Exhibit H. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 28 May 08. Exhibit I. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 17 Apr 09, w/atch. Exhibit J. Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Apr 09. Exhibit K. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 6 May 09. Exhibit L. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSS, dated 9 Mar 09. Exhibit M. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 20 Mar 09. Exhibit N. Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Aug 09, w/atchs. Panel Chair