RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02889 

 

 COUNSEL: 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. Her under other than honorable conditions discharge be 
upgraded to honorable. 

 

2. Her separation authority AFR 39-10 be changed. 

 

3. Her narrative reason for separation/separation code, Request 
for discharge in lieu of court-martial, be changed. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Through counsel she contends that the military services have 
worked hard to remove the stigma of mental health counseling and 
have educated service members on the warning signs of suicide 
and depression. Had her situation happened today, she would 
have been less reluctant to seek help for her emotional problems 
after undergoing a hysterectomy. 

 

So many years have passed since her discharge and it has been 
difficult to obtain complete records. A request from the 
National Personnel Records Center yielded her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, enlistment 
documents, Airman Performance Reports, an Article 15 and brief 
medical records. There is no record of court-martial preferral 
of charges or administrative separation in lieu of court-
martial. In order to separate a service member in lieu of 
court-martial, the request must be based on the fact that 
charges have been preferred. Even if the government had 
evidence she committed the offense of drug abuse, dereliction of 
duty and failure to repair [sic]; it is unlikely today these 
offenses would have been disposed of at a court-martial. More 
likely, she would have received an Article 15 and an 
administrative separation. Based on her time in service, she 
would have had the right to an administrative separation board 
hearing. Given her mitigating circumstances and otherwise 
outstanding record, she would have likely been retained or 
received an honorable discharge. 

 

She served honorably for nine years before her discharge. She 
was married and raising her son with her new husband. In 1989, 


she was diagnosed with uterine cancer and underwent a 
hysterectomy. This was emotionally devastating and she mourned 
the fact that she could not have a child with her new husband. 
She began a downward spiral and turned to cocaine in a desperate 
attempt to self-medicate. 

 

She understands this was the wrong choice and accepts the 
decision cost her military career. Her husband states his 
concern for her safety and that of their son motivated him to 
turn her in to law enforcement. In hindsight, the punishment 
and the discharge helped her fully appreciate the dangers and 
pitfalls of becoming involved with drugs; a lesson she was able 
to pass on to her son. 

 

It is unclear from the record what course of action the military 
took. There is an Article 15 for dereliction of duty for not 
rescheduling a drug rehabilitation appointment. She remembers a 
command directed urinalysis and receiving an Article 15 for 
substance abuse, but does not remember court-martial charges 
being preferred or the discharge process. 

 

While awaiting discharge, she moved into an apartment with her 
son. She also remembers falling ill and being seen at a 
civilian medical facility. Upon returning to work, she was 
notified she would receive an Article 15 for being absent 
without leave. She reacted to the news by attempting to commit 
suicide in her first sergeants office by overdosing on a 
prescription pain reliever. The Air Force placed her in the 
hospital for observation and then transferred her to 
correctional custody at Quantico Marine Base until her 
separation. She does not remember requesting discharge in lieu 
of court-martial, only that she wanted to get out of confinement 
and back with her son. Shortly after being discharged she was 
diagnosed with HIV. 

 

The actions taken to discharge her with an other than honorable 
discharge were unjustly severe. Her records are insufficient to 
justify the actions taken and even if the discharge were 
warranted at the time, it has served its intended purpose. The 
discharge characterization is not indicative either of her 
character or her military service and represents only a brief 
period of time in an otherwise outstanding military and civilian 
career. She is the type of person the Air Force would be proud 
to call an airman. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant submits a legal brief, 
personal statement, character letters and documents from her 
master personnel records. 

 

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

 

 

 


STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 July 1981. 
On 14 November 1989, the applicant’s commander preferred charges 
against her for violation of Article’s 86 and 92, Uniform Code 
of Military Justice. Specifically, the applicant was charged 
with five specifications of failing to go to her appointed place 
of duty, one specification of being absent without leave and one 
specification of failing to obey a lawful order. 

 

On 16 November 2012, under advisement of counsel, the applicant 
requested she be discharged in lieu of court-martial. The staff 
judge advocate concurred with her request on 12 December 1989. 
On 12 December 1989, the commander directed the applicant be 
separated with a character of service of under other than 
honorable conditions. Her narrative reason for separation was 
listed as request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-
martial and the separation authority was AFR 39-10. 

 

On 12 December 2012, a request for post-service information was 
forwarded to the applicant for response within 30 days 
(Exhibit C). As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 during the discharge process. 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, or unduly harsh. 
Additionally, we do not find it would be in the interest of 
justice to upgrade the discharge on the basis of clemency. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. 


Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2012-02889 in Executive Session on 12 February 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 June 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Dec 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair