RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01338 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to honorable and her rank be restored. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She was punished for making a sexual harassment complaint 
against her supervisor. As a result of her complaint, she was 
disciplined, reduced in rank, and discharged. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate she enlisted 
in the Regular Air Force on 24 Feb 82. 

 

On 5 May 86, the applicant was notified by her commander of his 
intent to recommend her discharge from the Air Force for 
Misconduct—Minor Disciplinary Infractions, under the provisions 
of AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen. The reasons 
for the action included financial irresponsibility, failure to 
go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty, 
failure to perform assigned duties, and being apprehended for 
shoplifting. For these incidences of misconduct, she received 
three letters of counseling, a letter of reprimand, and two 
Article 15s. 

 

On 6 May 86, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant 
acknowledged receipt of the action and elected to submit 
statements in her behalf. 

 

 

 


On 23 May 86, the case was found to be legally sufficient and 
the discharge authority approved the commander’s recommendation 
on 29 May 86, directing the applicant’s administrative discharge 
without probation and rehabilitation. 

 

On 13 Jun 86, the applicant was furnished a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge under the provisions of 
AFR 39-10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for Misconduct—
Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions, and was credited with 
4 years, 3 months, and 20 days of total active service. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR) which is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial with respect to the applicant’s 
request to restore her previous grade, indicating the commander 
was acting within his authority when he imposed punishment 
reducing her to the grade of airman first class (E-3). The 
applicant received a letter of reprimand for shoplifting and an 
Article 15 for failure to go. Her punishment consisted of a 
suspended reduction to Airman (E-2), forfeiture of $50.00 per 
month for two months, and confinement to correctional custody. 
She was promoted to Sergeant (E-4), effective 1 Aug 85. 
However, on 22 Apr 86, she received another Article 15 for 
failure to go. She was reduced to the rank of airman first 
class (E-3) and ordered to forfeit $75.00 a month for two 
months. 

 

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

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice. While the applicant alleges injustice in 
that she says she made a complaint of sexual harassment and, as 
a result, ended up disciplined and discharged from the Air 
Force, she does not include any mention of said complaint. On 
the other hand, the record does include sufficient support for 
the applicant’s administrative discharge from the Air Force as 
there is documentation of numerous offenses committed by the 
applicant, which include shoplifting and writing bad checks. 
The applicant’s Article 15s are also included in the personnel 
record and both of these actions were shown to have been 
processed correctly and the applicant’s rights were protected 
throughout the process. The applicant has provided no evidence 
to support her request. The Article 15 actions were found to be 
legally sufficient and she had the opportunity to present 
extenuating or mitigating evidence to her commander as part of 
those proceedings. The commander was in the best position to 
carefully weigh all the evidence, make informed findings of 
fact, and arrive at a suitable punishment. 


A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicant’s request for her 
discharge to be upgraded to honorable, indicating there is no 
evidence of an error or injustice. 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 
regulation 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. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 5 Oct 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit F). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice. Additionally, we considered upgrading the 
applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, in the absence 
of any evidence related to the applicant’s activities since 
leaving the service, we find no basis to recommend granting the 
relief sought on that basis. However, should the applicant 
decide to submit documentation related to her post-service 
activities, we may be inclined to reconsider her request based 
on new evidence. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to grant any of the relief sought in 
this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


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-2011-01338 in Executive Session on 19 Jan 12, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 16 May 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 6 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 19 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Oct 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair