RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00631 

 COUNSEL: NONE 
 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, be corrected to reflect her characterization of discharge 
as general (under honorable conditions) rather than under other 
than honorable conditions (UOTHC). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Whoever processed her DD Form 214 made an error as her Air Force 
Form 100, Request and Authorization for Separation, reflects she 
received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a copy of her 
Air Force Form 100. 

 

A copy of the applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, 
is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 28 June 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force 
in the grade of airman basic (E-1). She was progressively 
promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3) effective 
28 October 2001. 

 

The applicant received a total of five letters of reprimand and 
one letter of counseling between February 2001 and September 2002 
for numerous missed appointments and failures to go. She also 
lost her driving privileges for 30 days in January 2002 as a 
result of accumulating six or more traffic points in a six-month 
period of time. In addition, on 16 November 2001, the applicant 
received Article 15 punishment for striking another individual in 
the head, in violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military 
Justice (UCMJ); wrongfully using provoking words towards an armed 
forces policeman, in violation of Article 117, UCMJ; and for 
resisting being apprehended by armed forces police officers, in 
violation of Article 95, UCMJ. Her punishment consisted of 
forfeiture of $220 pay per month for two months suspended until 
15 May 2002, and a reprimand. 

 


On 19 November 2002, the applicant received Article 15 punishment 
for wrongfully importing marijuana from the United States to 
Japan while on board an aircraft under the control of the armed 
forces; and, wrongfully using marijuana, both charges in 
violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. Her punishment consisted of 
reduction in grade to airman basic with a new date of rank of 
19 November 2002, and a reprimand. 

 

On 12 December 2002, the applicant was notified of her 
commander’s intent to recommend her for an UOTHC discharge as a 
result of the conduct which resulted in her receiving the Article 
15 punishment imposed on 19 November 2002. The applicant 
acknowledged her commander’s intent and waived her rights to a 
hearing before an administrative discharge board and to submit 
statements in her own behalf. On 13 December 2002, after 
consulting counsel, the applicant submitted an unconditional 
waiver indicating she understood that if approved she may be 
discharged with a UOTHC discharge and be deprived of veteran 
benefits. She also indicated she understood the adverse nature 
of such a discharge and the possible consequences thereof. 

 

On 17 December 2002, her commander recommended the applicant be 
discharged with an UOTHC discharge without probation or 
rehabilitation under the provisions Air Force Personnel Directive 
36-32, Military Retirements and Separations, and Air Force 
Instruction 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, 
paragraph 5.54. On 24 January 2003, after two levels of legal 
review the case was found legally sufficient, the discharge 
authority accepted the applicant’s unconditional waiver and 
directed she be discharged with a UOTHC characterization of 
service without probation or rehabilitation. 

 

On 10 February 2003, the applicant was discharged from active 
duty with a UOTHC discharge. She served 2 years, 7 months, and 
13 days on active duty. 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI), Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an 
Investigation Report (Exhibit C). 

 

On 10 June 2011, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit 
comments about her post service activities and in response to the 
FBI Report (Exhibit F). As of this date, this office has 
received no response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states that after a review 
of the applicant’s personnel records, her DD Form 214 reflects 
the correct characterization of service as UOTHC. At the time of 
her separation, her Air Force Form 100 was completed incorrectly 
indicating a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. 


Therefore, they have directed the form be corrected to reflect a 
UOTHC discharge. 

 

DPSOS indicates a member’s DD Form 214 is the official governing 
document that should be used for any military benefit or 
clarification of character of service. The Air Force Form 100 is 
used to out process an individual from their unit and for travel 
entitlements at the time of separation. Based on the 
documentation on file in the master personnel records, the 
discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive 
requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the 
discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant has 
provided no evidence or facts warranting a change to her 
character of service. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 22 April 2011, for review and comment within 30 days. 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 error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim 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 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-2011-00631 in Executive Session on 29 November 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

, Panel Chair 

, Member 

, Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-00631: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Feb 11, w/atch. 

Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

Exhibit C. FBI Report. 

Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 29 Mar 11. 

Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Apr 11. 

Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Jun 11, w/atch. 

 

 

 

 



 Panel Chair