RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03474 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

2. Her rank of senior airman (SrA) be restored. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She was wrongly mistreated, harassed and discriminated against 
because she was African-American, would not have a romantic 
relationship with her supervisor like her coworker did, and 
because she reported her supervisor for violating her Health 
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) rights. 

 

The negative aspects do not outweigh the good that she did while 
she was in the military. 

 

She had alcohol problems and agrees that her repeated lateness 
was wrong; however, she was never given help, support, or 
encouragement from her supervisor or from her chain of command. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 30 May 01, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular 
Air Force. 

 

On 29 Apr 04, the applicant, then a senior airman, was offered 
nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. She was charged 
with one specification of failure to go to her appointed place 
of duty, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. On 30 Apr 04, the 
commander decided that the applicant had committed the charged 
offense and imposed punishment consisting of a suspended 
reduction to the rank of airman first class and thirty days 
correctional custody. 

 

On 2 August 2004, the applicant was given notice of the vacation 
of the suspended nonjudicial punishment imposed on 30 Apr 04, 


under Article 15, for the same offense. She was charged with 
two specifications of failure to go to her appointed place of 
duty, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. On 5 Aug 04, the 
commander decided the applicant had violated one or more of the 
conditions of her suspension and vacated the suspended portion 
of the punishment imposed in the 30 Apr 04, which resulted in 
the applicant's reduction in rank to airman first class. 

 

On 10 Aug 04, the applicant, then an airman first class, was 
again offered nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, for the 
same offense. The applicant was charged with one specification 
of failure to go to her appointed place of duty, in violation of 
Article 86, UCMJ. 

 

On 23 Aug 04, the commander decided that the applicant had 
committed the charged offense and imposed punishment consisting 
of a reduction to the rank of airman, thirty days extra duty and 
a reprimand. The applicant appealed the commander's decision. 
On 21 Sept 04, the appellate authority denied the applicant's 
appeal. 

 

On 18 Oct 04, the squadron commander notified the applicant of 
administrative discharge action for a pattern of misconduct. 
For a full list of the offenses, please see the commander’s 
notification letter at Exhibit B. 

 

On 18 Oct 04, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge notification, and after consulting with legal counsel, 
submitted statements in her own behalf. 

 

On 29 Sep 04, the base legal office reviewed the case and found 
it legally sufficient to support separation and recommended the 
applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable 
conditions) discharge. 

 

On 2 Nov 04, the applicant was discharged under honorable 
conditions in the grade of airman, by reason of misconduct. She 
served on active duty for a period of 3 years, 5 months, and 
3 days. 

 

On 28 Feb 13, a request for information pertaining to her post-
service activities was forwarded to the applicant for response 
within 30 days (Exhibit G). 

 

In response to the request, the applicant submitted a personal 
statement and summarized her military career and achievements. 
She has a 7 year old daughter, has graduated from massage 
school, and works at Macy’s and is doing massage therapy part-
time. She recently started treatment at the Department of 
Veterans Affairs for depression, and hopes that she can learn to 
trust again and be happy. 

 

In further support of her appeal, the applicant provides three 
character letters. 


 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of her request to upgrade her 
discharge. DPSOR states that the applicant did not provide any 
evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in 
the discharge processing. Based on the documentation on file in 
the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with 
the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge 
authority. 

 

DPSOR further states that airmen are subject to separation for 
misconduct that disrupts order, discipline, or morale within the 
military community. The applicant received numerous verbal 
counseling on various occasions. The applicant’s repeated 
incidents of misconduct reflected an unwillingness to conform to 
Air Force standards. According to AFI 36-3208, Administrative 
Separation of Airmen, paragraph 1.18.2, if an airman’s service 
has been honest and faithful, a general (under honorable 
conditions) service characterization is warranted when 
significant negative aspects of the airman’s conduct or 
performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the 
airman’s military record. The negative aspects of the 
applicant’s short Air Force career outweigh the positive. 
Therefore, a general service characterization is most 
appropriate in this case. 

 

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to set 
aside two of the three nonjudicial punishment actions that 
resulted in her reduction in grade from senior airman to airman. 
JAJM states the applicant has not shown a clear error or 
injustice. The applicant does not allege any error or injustice 
with regard to the processing of the nonjudicial punishment 
actions against her. She argues that her supervisor did not 
like her, discriminated against her based on race and failed to 
support her. The applicant was, however, punished not by her 
immediate supervisor based on his personal evaluation of her, 
but by her squadron commander for the repeated failure to report 
for duty on time. The commander at the time of the Article 15 
had the best opportunity to evaluate the evidence in the case. 
With that perspective, the commander exercised the discretion 
that the applicant granted him when she accepted the Article 15 
and found nonjudicial punishment appropriate in this case. The 
legal review process showed that the commander did not act 
arbitrarily or capriciously in making his decisions. 

 


The applicant admits that she had drug and alcohol problems and 
agrees that her repeated lateness was wrong. She argues, 
however, that she was never given the help, support, or 
encouragement from her supervisor or from her chain of command 
that she was due. 

 

A set aside of an Article 15 is the removal of the punishment 
from the record and the restoration of the service member’s 
rights, privileges, pay, or property affected by the punishment. 
Setting aside an Article 15 action restores the member to the 
position held before imposition of the punishment, as if the 
action had never been initiated. A set aside of punishment 
should not routinely be granted. Rather, a set aside is to be 
used strictly in the rare and unusual case where a genuine 
question about the service member’s guilt arises or where the 
best interests of the Air Force would be served. 

 

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant reiterates her original contentions. She states 
that she waived her right to a trial by court-martial when she 
received her Article 15, because she was in fact late for work 
but, when she was 10-15 minutes late, she made sure she stayed 
an extra 20-30 minutes to make up her time or until her extra 
duties were completed. 

 

She is unable to produce any evidence of her supervisor’s 
adulterous affair. 

 

Regarding the JAJM comment that she admitted she had a drug 
problem, she would like to set the record straight that although 
she did drink alcohol often to escape from the situation she was 
in at the time, she has never used any illegal drugs. 

 

She self-referred to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and 
Treatment Program (ADAPT) to get her drinking under control. 
She was also treated for suicidal thoughts and severe 
depression. 

 

Although her request is untimely, she prays the Board will waive 
the time limitations. 

 

 


The applicant's complete response is at Exhibit F. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 to warrant 
upgrading her discharge. We took notice of the applicant's 
complete submission to include her rebuttal submission and post- 
service information in judging the merits of the case; however, 
we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force 
offices of primary responsibility and adopt their 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 applicant’s 
discharge based on clemency; however, after considering her 
overall record of service, the numerous infractions which led to 
her administrative separation, we are not persuaded that an 
upgrade on this basis is warranted. With respect to her request 
that her rank be restored to SrA, the applicant has not provided 
any evidence to substantiate that her reductions in grade as a 
result of the Article 15 punishments were inappropriate. 
Therefore, we find no basis to restore her grade to SrA. In 
view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider her 
requests. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 Docket Number 
BC-2012-03474 in Executive Session on 30 Apr 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Jul 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 20 Sep 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 25 Oct 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Nov 12. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, undated. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 28 Feb 13. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Mar 13, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair