RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02483
			COUNSEL:  NONE
     			HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct” be changed.   

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She requested separation and was not forced out.

She was treated unfairly by her first sergeant and commander.  
During this time she was going through divorce proceedings.    

In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy of her 
DD Form 293, Application for the Review of Discharge from the 
Armed Forces of the United States.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 26 Jun 1996, the applicant entered active duty.

On 21 May 1999, the applicant was notified by her commander that 
he was recommending her for discharge from the Air Force for 
misconduct, minor disciplinary infractions, with a general 
(under honorable conditions) discharge.  Specifically, failure 
to obey a direct order given by her first sergeant, willful 
disobeyance of a lawful order on multiple occasions and an 
Article 15 for violation of a no-contact order.  

On 21 May 1999, the applicant acknowledged the discharge 
notification, her right to consult counsel and to submit 
statements on her own behalf.  

On 1 Jun 1999, the staff judge advocate found the discharge 
recommendation legally sufficient. 

The discharge authority approved the discharge recommendation.  

On 9 Jun 1999, the applicant was discharged with service 
characterized as general (under honorable conditions) with a 
narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct.”

She served 2 years, 11 months and 14 days.

In 2008, the applicant submitted a DD Form 293 requesting her 
discharge be upgraded to honorable.  

On 8 Oct 2009, the Discharge Review Board (DRB) concluded the 
applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural and 
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority but found the 
applicant was not provided full administrative due process.  In 
view of the findings, the DRB concluded the overall quality of 
the applicant’s service was more appropriately reflected by an 
honorable discharge under the provisions of Title 10, USC 1553. 
   
________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  Based on the documentation on 
file in her master personnel records, the discharge to include 
her narrative reason for separation 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.  
In Accordance With (IAW) Air Force Instruction (AFI)          
36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, a general 
discharge is appropriate when significant negative aspects of 
the airman’s conduct or performance of duty outweighs the 
positive aspects of the airman’s military record.  The 
applicant’s misconduct in this case clearly outweighs the 
positive aspects of her service.  Her commander stated before 
recommending the discharge that every effort was made by the 
applicant’s supervision to rehabilitate the applicant and she 
was afforded an opportunity to overcome her deficiencies.  She 
received numerous verbal and written counseling sessions, 
Letters of Reprimands (LOR) and an Article 15 due to her 
misconduct on and off duty.   The applicant’s incidents of 
misconduct disrupted good order, discipline and morale within 
the military community; hence the discharge was appropriate.   

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________






APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 5 Aug 2013, the applicant was provided a copy of the Air 
Force evaluation for review and comment within 30 days.  As of 
this date, this office has not received a response (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 an injustice warranting 
relief.  After a thorough review of the facts and circumstances 
in this case, we are persuaded the applicant has suffered an 
injustice.  We note that DPSOR recommends denial stating she 
received LORs and an Article 15 due to her misconduct on and off 
duty.  However, AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of 
Airmen, states that an honorable discharge is appropriate when 
the quality of the airman's service generally has met Air Force 
standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty or when 
a member's service is otherwise so meritorious that any other 
characterization would be inappropriate.  Therefore, since the 
DRB determined the applicant’s service was “honorable,” we 
believe that a discharge due to misconduct mischaracterizes the 
applicant’s service.  For this reason and to prevent a further 
burden with the stigma associated with her narrative reason for 
separation of “Misconduct,” we recommend that it be changed to 
“Secretarial Authority.”  Accordingly we recommend the record be 
corrected as set forth below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
      
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that at the 
time of her 9 Jun 1999 discharge, the narrative reason for her 
separation was Secretarial Authority with a separation code of 
“JFF.” 

_________________________________________________________________





The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-02483 in Executive Session on 25 Mar 2014 under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	  , Panel Chair
	  , Member
	  , Member

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

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 May 2013, w/atch.
Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Military Personnel Records
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 10 Jul 2013.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 2013.




					 					     
	Panel Chair