RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                   DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03189	
		  		    COUNSEL:  NONE
	 		            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded 
to honorable.  

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of her discharge she was very young and did not 
realize or understand the seriousness of the situation or the 
consequences that would result from her actions.  

She has since matured and secured employment with the U.S. 
Postal Service.

In support of her request, she provides a copy of her DD Form 
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; 
letter of appointment with the U.S. Postal Service and letters 
of support. 

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

________________________________________________________________ 

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 13 May 2003, the applicant entered active duty.

On 29 Jul 2004, the applicant’s commander notified her that he 
was recommending that she be discharged from the Air Force with 
an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge for a 
pattern of misconduct; specifically, conduct prejudicial to good 
order and discipline In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-3208, 
Administrative Separation of Airmen.  The specific reasons for 
the discharge recommendation include an Article 15 for 
submitting an inaccurate AF Form 988, Leave Request and 
Authorization; a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for being 
disrespectful and displaying contempt during a counseling 
session, an Article 15 for making a false statement that she was 
on her way to sick call and was placed on quarters, and 
conviction by a Summary Court-Martial (SCM) for switching price 
tags on a pair of shoes at the Army Air Forces Exchange 
Services, Base Exchange.
  
On 2 Aug 2004, the applicant acknowledged the notification of 
recommendation for discharge and right to consult counsel.  

On 3 Aug 2004, the applicant conditionally waived her right to 
an administrative discharge board hearing provided the 
separation authority characterized her discharge no less than a 
general.  She declined to submit matters in her own behalf.  

On 17 Aug 2004, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) found the case 
legally sufficient to support the basis for separation.  The SJA 
recommended the applicant’s conditional waiver of an 
administrative discharge board hearing be accepted and she be 
given a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation 
based upon the nature of her misconduct. 

On 1 Sep 2004, the discharge authority approved the SJA’s 
recommendation. 

On 22 Sep 2004, she was discharged with service characterized as 
general (under honorable conditions) with a narrative reason for 
separation of “Misconduct.”

She served 1 year, 3 months and 29 days on active duty.  

On 4 Mar 2014, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an 
opportunity to provide information pertaining to her activities 
since leaving the service (Exhibit E).  In response to the 
request the applicant states that her military experience helped 
her accomplish more in life than she expected.  Prior to her 
discharge, she did many unethical things and made it very 
difficult for those around her to handle her approach towards 
work, authority and Air Force values.  These events ended her 
career in the military.  Since then she has tried to piece her 
life back together.  She resents the fact that she was not 
mature enough to understand the opportunity she was given by the 
military and has tried to excel and learn from her mistakes.  
She has been employed with the U.S. Postal Service for more than 
two years.  She completed her Associate’s degree in Electronic 
Medical Records, was a Summa Cum Laude graduate and is pursuing 
her bachelor’s degree in Allied Healthcare while working full-
time.  She has obtained a position as a medical coder with the 
U.S. Navy and hopes to once again be a part of the Air Force.  

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit F.       

________________________________________________________________ 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  Based on the documentation on 
file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge 
was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements 
of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the 
discharge authority to include the characterization of 
discharge.  The applicant did not submit any evidence or 
identify any errors or injustices in the discharge processing.  
IAW AFI 36-3208, Paragraph 5.48.1., discharges arising from a 
pattern of misconduct should be characterized as UOTHC.  
However, under paragraph 5.48, if the circumstances are such 
that a UOTHC discharge is not warranted, a general discharge is 
appropriate.  Since the applicant’s conduct did not involve any 
violence, use of force or the endangerment of a United States, 
military member, or other persons of such a serious nature, a 
general discharge was appropriate.   

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.
 
________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 19 Sep 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit 
D).  As of this date, this office has not received a 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.  In the interest 
of justice we considered upgrading the characterization of the 
applicant’s discharge based on clemency; however, after 
considering her overall record of service and the post-service 
documentation provided by the applicant, we are not persuaded 
that an upgrade on this basis is warranted.  Therefore, in view 
of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we 
find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief 
sought.

________________________________________________________________ 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
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 Docket Number BC-
2013-03189 in Executive Session on 6 May 2014, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

     , Panel Chair
     , Member
     , Member

The following documentation was considered: 

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jun 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 21 Aug 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Sep 2013.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Mar 2014, w/atch.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.  




                                    
                                   Panel Chair