RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00931 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She served honorably, and the fact she was overweight did not 
impede her ability to serve or to do the job she was trained to 
do. 

 

She is proud to have served in the United States Air Force and 
would gladly do so again. 

 

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 17 Aug 77, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force and 
was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant. 

 

She received six (6) Airman Performance Reports (APRs) with 
overall ratings of 9, 9, 8, 9, 7, and 6, respectively. 

 

On 12 Apr 83, the applicant was notified by her commander that he 
was recommending her discharge from the Air Force under the 
provisions of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, 
paragraph 5-26, for unsatisfactory performance. The reasons for 
the proposed action were: 1) On 22 Oct and 23 Nov 82, the 
applicant was counseled for being delinquent in the payment of 
her Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Club account; 2) On 22 Dec 82, 
the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for being 
delinquent in the payment of her NCO Club account; and 3) On 
10 Jan 83, the applicant was counseled for being delinquent in 
the payment of her NCO Club account. 

 

The applicant received several disciplinary actions relating to 
failure to maintain military weight standards and financial 
responsibilities. 

 

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification, 
and after consulting with counsel, waived her right to submit 
statements in her own behalf. 


 

The staff judge advocate (SJA) found the case legally sufficient 
to support discharge and noted that despite efforts of 
rehabilitation, the applicant failed to conduct herself in a 
manner commensurate with acceptable military standards. The SJA 
further noted that in determining whether an applicant should be 
discharged or retained, the entire military record may be 
considered. However, in determining the type of discharge, only 
matters in the present enlistment beginning 29 May 81 should be 
considered. 

 

On 25 Apr 83, the discharge authority approved the discharge and 
directed a general discharge. 

 

On 27 Apr 83, the applicant was discharged and received a general 
discharge. She served on active duty for a period of 5 years, 
8 months and 11 days. 

 

Pursuant to the request of the Board on 8 Apr 11, the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated on 
14 Apr 11, that, on the basis of the data furnished, they were 
unable to locate an arrest record. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 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. Having found no 
error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while 
the applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis 
exists to grant favorable action on her request. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 Docket Number 
BC-2011-00931 in Executive Session on 29 Jun 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Sep 10, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair