AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02783 
COUNSEL: NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: YES 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
Her  under  other  than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge  be 
upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
She  was  miscounseled  regarding  the  procedures  to  request  a 
permanent  change  of  station  (PCS)  assignment.    In  this  respect, 
she contends the following: 
 
1.  She  was  informed  she  could  be  stationed  near  her  future 
husband  upon  request.    After  arriving  at  Omaha,  Nebraska,  her 
request seemed impossible.  Her supervisor told her the only way 
she  could  be  discharged  was  to  get  pregnant  or  go  on  leave  and 
never  return.    He  also  stated  her  military  background  would  not 
be on record or held against her.  
 
2.  Since her discharge she has held a few good jobs, in fact she 
worked  at  one  job  for  20  years.    She  has  a  history  of  being 
dependable;  she  would  have  never  abandoned  her  country,  but  she 
was wrongfully misguided.   
 
3.  After  retiring  from  her  previous  employer,  she  decided  to 
rejoin  the  workforce;  however,  a  background  check  revealed  her 
previous military record of desertion.  If she had to do it over 
again,  she  would  not  have  listened  to  the  instructions  provided 
by her supervisor.  She loved her country and would gladly serve 
again, if she could.   

 The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 11 Sep 70, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. 
 On  17  Nov  70,  the  applicant  requested  a  one  year  active  duty 
service  commitment  (ADSC)  waiver  and  discharge  under  the 
provisions  of  AFM  39-10,  Separation  upon  Expiration  of  Term  of 
Service,  For  Convenience  of  Government,  Minority,  Dependency, 

 

 

and  Hardship.  The 1st Aerospace Communications Group commander 
reviewed  the  request  and  recommended  the  3902  Air  Base  Wing 
(3902  ABW),  Consolidated  Base  Personnel  Office  (CBPO)  approved 
the request.  On 23 Nov 70, the CBPO-ASGN section approved the 
applicant’s request.   
 
On  10  Dec  70,  the  Air  Force  Military  Personnel  Center  (AFMPC) 
reviewed the case and recommended disapproval stating there was 
insufficient  justification  to  support  a  waiver  of  the  one  year 
ADSC.    On  21  Dec  70,  AFMPC  notified  the  CBPO  the  applicant’s 
request for an ADSC waiver was disapproved.    
 
On  or  about  31  Dec  70,  until  on  or  about  19  Jan  71,  the 
applicant  without  authority,  absented  herself  from  her 
organization,  in  violation  of  Article  86,  Uniform  Code  of 
Military  Justice  (UCMJ).    For  this  offense,  the  applicant 
received  an  Article  15,  UCMJ,  suspended  reduction  to  the  grade 
of  airman  basic  and  forfeiture  of  $50  pay  per  month  for  two 
months. 
 
On or about 1 Mar 71, until on or about 9 Jun 71, the applicant 
without  authority  absented  herself  from  her  organization,  in 
violation  of  Article  86,  UCMJ.    On  14  Jun  71,  a  charge  for 
violation  of  Article  86,  UCMJ  was  preferred  against  the 
applicant.   
 
On  15  Jun  71,  the  applicant  requested  discharge  under  the 
provisions of AFM 39-12, Administrative Separation of Airman for 
the  Good  of  the  Service.    On  28  Jun  71,  the  1st  Aerospace 
Communications  Group  commander  reviewed  the  applicant’s  request 
for  discharge  and  recommended  it  be  accepted  and  forwarded  to 
the  General  Courts-Martial  (GCM)  convening  authority  with  a 
recommendation  to  discharge  the  applicant  from  the  Air  Force 
with an undesirable discharge.   
 
On  1  Jul  71,  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  (SJA)  reviewed  the  case 
file and found it legally sufficient to support the applicant’s 
request  for  discharge  and  recommended  that  she  receive  an 
undesirable  discharge.    In  addition,  the  SJA  recommended  the 
case  be  forward  to  Headquarters  Strategic  Air  Command  (HQ  SAC) 
for final processing  
 
On 16 Jul 71, the HQ SAC/Deputy SJA reviewed the case file and 
found it legally sufficient to support discharge. 
 
On 27 Jul 71, the HQ SAC/CC directed the applicant be discharged 
under  the  provisions  of  AFM  39-12  and  be  issued  an  undesirable 
discharge.   
 
On  30  Jul  71,  the  applicant  was  discharged  with  service 
characterized  as  under  other  than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC) 
in the grade of airman and issued a DD Form 258AF,  Undesirable 
Discharge Certificate.  She served 7 months and 10 days of total 
active service.   
 
 

2

 

 
On  28  Jan  13,  the  AFBCMR  staff  offered  the  applicant  an 
opportunity to provide information pertaining to her activities 
since leaving the service (Exhibit C).   
 
In  response  to  the  request,  the  applicant  states  she  was  proud 
to be a part of the Air Force.  Her training was rewarding and 
she met a lot of wonderful people from all over the world.  She 
has been married to the same man for 43 years and they have two 
wonderful children.  She continues to work and look for ways to 
help those in need, as well as ways to learn and grow.   
 
The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 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.  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  in  the  discharge  processing.    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,  unduly  harsh,  or 
disproportionate  to  the  offenses  committed.    In  the  interest  of 
justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; 
however,  we  do  not  find  the  evidence  presented  is  sufficient  to 
compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis.  
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: 
 
 

3

 

  
  
  

 
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  Docket  Number    
BC-2012-02783  in  Executive  Session  on  19  Mar  13,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 May 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Record. 
 
Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 28 Jan 13. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Feb 13. 
 
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Panel Chair 
Member 
Member 

 
Panel Chair 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

  
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

4