RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01756 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her dishonorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She believes her dishonorable discharge is not warranted. She 
was pregnant at the time of discharge and did not fight the 
discharge. She states she was sexually harassed by her Non-
Commissioned Officer (NCO) when she refused to go out with him. 
He began to write letters of reprimand. 

 

The applicant provides no documentation in support of her 
request. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29 July 1985. 

 

On 10 June 1986, the applicant was notified by her commander of 
his intent to recommend that she be discharged from the Air Force 
under the provisions of AFR 39-10, paragraph 5-46 (Misconduct – 
Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions). The specific reasons 
were as follows: 

 

 On 6 February 1986, the applicant received two (2) Letters of 
Reprimand (LORs) for failure to go at the time prescribed to her 
appointed place of duty on 2 and 4 February 1986. 

 

 The applicant received a Record of Individual Counseling for 
substandard duty performance on 8 and 17 April 1986. 

 

 On 23 May 1986, the applicant received an Article 15 for 
failure to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of 
duty on 9 May 1986. 

 

 


She was advised of her rights in this matter and acknowledged 
receipt of the notification. After consulting with counsel, the 
applicant elected to submit a statement in her own behalf. 

 

In a legal review of the case file, the staff judge advocate 
found the case legally sufficient and recommended discharge. The 
discharge authority concurred with the recommendations and 
directed a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The 
applicant was discharged on 27 June 1986. She served 10 months 
and 29 days on active duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states that although the 
applicant’s record does not reveal any sexual harassment charges, 
it does reflect her history of misconduct. 

 

The applicant has not filed a timely petition; it has been more 
than 24 years since the applicant’s discharge from the Air Force. 
The applicant cites she was never told that she could file to 
have her discharge looked into. 

 

Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel 
records, the discharge to include her characterization of service 
was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements 
of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence 
of an error or injustice that occurred in the discharge 
processing. 

 

The DPSOS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The AFBCMR 
Medical Consultant states that he found evidence to substantiate 
that the applicant had one or more medical conditions that 
warranted an alternative medical separation under provisions of 
AFR 35-4 (today’s AFI 36-3212 counterpart). Had this been the 
case, the applicant would have been eligible for a possible “dual 
action” review of her case by the Secretary of the Air Force 
Personnel Council (SAFPC) for a determination of the appropriate 
basis for separation. In this instance a comparative analysis 
would have been undertaken of the nature and severity of the 
applicant’s disciplinary infractions and her medical condition(s) 
in search of a possible causal or mitigating relationship between 
the two. Based upon the medical evidence supplied and the 
infractions committed, the Medical Consultant found no causal or 
mitigating relationship between the applicant’s medical 
condition(s) and her disciplinary infractions and believes that 
SAFPC, more likely than not, would have executed the involuntary 
separation action under provisions of AFR 39-10. Therefore, the 
Medical Consultant opines the applicant has not met the burden of 


proof of an error or injustice that warrants the desired change 
of the record. 

 

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit 
D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 26 January 2011, copies of the Air Force evaluations were 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received no 
response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and the 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and the AFBCMR Medical Consultant and adopt their rationale as 
the basis for our conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain 
her burden of proof of the existence of an error or injustice. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an 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-2010-01756 in Executive Session on 3 March 2011, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 


 

 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-01756 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 May 2010. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, 

 dated 21 January 2011. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 5 November 2010. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 January 2011. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair