RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00011

			COUNSEL:  

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable, and her reentry (RE) code of 2B be changed.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The consequences of her discharge were too harsh considering the facts of her case.  She asks the Board to grant her request based on her contentions below, and based on clemency due to the letters of recommendation she provided.  

	1.  The investigation which led to her discharge was factually and legally insufficient.  The Court states the commander’s decision must be based on a preponderance of evidence.  The preponderance of evidence standard is typically met when there is some sort of concrete evidence, usually in the form of a properly administered drug test.  However, no physical evidence was ever collected from the dorm room where the party occurred or from the applicant’s room.  No physical evidence was ever submitted for testing of any kind.  No blood, breath, or hair samples were taken from the applicant and analyzed for toxicological purpose.  The applicant was never told who reported her, but most likely they were intoxicated themselves.  She submitted two notarized statements from people who attended the dorm party sating she did not participate in inhaling or ingesting toxic chemicals.  

	2.  The legal advice provided to the applicant was insufficient.  The meeting with her assigned legal counsel lasted only a few minutes, and consisted primary of the counsel giving her a form to have her discharge reviewed.  It was clear the advice was a symbolic effort to meet the requirements of procedure.  

	3.  The discharge recommendation included errors.  The Recommendation for Discharge letter, dated 23 Oct 89, states she had not received any favorable communications, citations or awards, while in actuality her communications, citations and awards are too numerous to mention individually.  As an example, she was Airmen of the Month in Jan 88, a Finalist for Chef of the Quarter in Oct 88, and Achiever of the Quarter from Jan 88 through Mar 88.  Further, several tabs in her discharge package are empty, such as the tab containing all the letters she submitted on her behalf recommending retention.  It is not clear whether they were even given consideration by her command. 

	4.  The discharge and its adverse impact are disproportionate to the alleged offense.  She did not inhale butane for the purpose of altering her mood or function.  Stigma attaches where there is a general discharge, and in particular, where there are allegations of drug use.  Where there is stigma there needs to be due process.  She has suffered from this stigma for more than 20 years.  While she earned her Bachelor’s Degree in Criminal Justice Administration and a paralegal certificate, she applied for numerous jobs in criminal justice and the local government, only to be told she could not have the position because of the characterization of her discharge.  The command’s decision to discharge her based on a questionable investigation was unduly harsh and that decision affects her to this day. 

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Air Force on 25 Nov 85.

On 23 Oct 89, the applicant’s commander recommended she be discharged from the Air Force for substance abuse.  The reason for this action was that a Security Police Investigation revealed that on 10 Oct 89, she purposely inhaled butane gas to alter her state of mind.

On 6 Nov 89, the case was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient.

On 13 Nov 89, the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharged with a general discharge as soon as possible. 

On 13 Nov 89, the applicant was furnished a general (under honorable conditions) discharge with an RE code of 2B (discharged under general or other-than-honorable conditions), a narrative reason for separation of “misconduct—other serious offense,” and was credited with 3 years, 11 months, and 19 days of active service.  

On 15 Apr 91, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered her application to upgrade her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable, and denied her request.  The DRB determined the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.  

On 5 Aug 13, a request for post-service information was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  We find no impropriety in the characterization of the applicant's discharge or the narrative reason for her separation.  Considered alone, we conclude the discharge proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing circumstances.  Consideration of this Board, however, is not limited to the events which precipitated the discharge.  In this respect, it may base its decision on matters of equity and clemency rather than simply on whether rules and regulations which existed at the time were followed.  Under this broader mandate, and after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of applicant's case, we are persuaded that in the interest of justice, corrective action is warranted based on clemency.  In this respect, we note the applicant has provided several supporting statements which describe her educational accomplishments and the many positive contributions she has made to her community since leaving the service.  Accordingly, in view of the applicant’s successful transition to civilian life, we believe the continued stigma of a general (under honorable conditions) discharge no longer serves any useful purpose.  Therefore, in view of the passage of time and the applicant’s post-service adjustment, we believe upgrading her discharge to honorable is appropriate.  Based on this, we also recommend her narrative reason for separation be changed to “Secretarial Authority.” 

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 13 November 1989, she received an honorable discharge with a narrative reason for separation of “Secretarial Authority” rather than “Misconduct—Other Serious Offense,” a separation program designator code of “KFF” rather than “JKQ,” and a reentry code of “3K” rather than “2B.”

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00011 in Executive Session on 31 Oct 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Dec 12, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Aug 13, w/atch.




			 
                                   Panel Chair