RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00644

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her General (Under Honorable Conditions) Discharge be upgraded to 
Honorable.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her discharge was inequitable because it was based on one incident 
in 17 months of service with no other adverse actions.  
Additionally, she claims counsel advised her to accept 
responsibility for something she did not do; which, resulted in an 
article 15 and subsequent discharge.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 9 Dec 98.

On 2 May 00, the applicant received an Article 15, Nonjudicial 
Punishment for violating Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 
112a – wrongful distribution of marijuana.  Applicant was demoted 
to airman basic.

On 9 May 00, the applicant’s squadron commander furnished 
applicant with a recommendation for discharge memorandum in which 
she supported a General discharge.

On 12 May 00, the applicant requested retention. 

On 19 May 00, the staff judge advocate concluded the file 
contained no errors or irregularities and recommended a general 
discharge.

On 23 May 00, the wing commander in accordance with Air Force 
Instruction 36-3208, chapter 5, section H, paragraph 5.54.1 
approved a general discharge.   

On 25 Sep 00, the applicant was furnished a general discharge, and 
was credited with 1 year, 5 months, and 17 days of active service.   

On 7 May 2008, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied 
the applicant’s request to upgrade her discharge to honorable.  
The AFDRB concluded that the discharge was consistent with the 
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulations, was within the discretion of the discharge authority 
and the applicant was provided full administrative due process.  
The board further concluded that there exists no legal or 
equitable basis for upgrade of discharge.

On 27 Jun 14, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) indicated 
that a search of the fingerprints provided by the applicant 
revealed no prior arrest data at the FBI.
 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or an injustice.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 23 Apr 14, the applicant provided a rebuttal with five 
character letters for the Board’s consideration.  She contends 
that she did not use drugs and that when the incident occurred; 
she was just a young, confused and scared kid.  She made up a 
bogus story to hide the truth so that she did not have to inform 
on a fellow airman.  She was more concerned with their well-being 
than her own.  During the entire incident, no one really helped 
her defend herself and she feels she was railroaded into accepting 
a punishment she did not deserve.



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, to include her 
rebuttal response, 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, we do not find the 
evidence presented is sufficient for us to conclude that the 
applicant’s post-service activities overcome the misconduct for 
which she was discharged.  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-2014-00644 in Executive Session on 21 Nov 14 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Feb 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 9 Apr 14.
	Exhibit D.  Information Bulletin – Clemency.
	Exhibit E.  Applicant’s letter, dated 23 May 14.