RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01163
			COUNSEL:  NONE
	 		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was young, in a bad relationship and her choices were without clarity.  She has grown into an honorable soul and her life now is very different.  She has worked for the postal service since 2005 and is buying back her military service time and requests her status be changed.     

In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and 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 25 Jun 1991, the applicant entered active duty. 

On 1 Apr 1996, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was initiating action to discharge her from the Air Force for misconduct.  Specifically, the commission of a serious offense to include wrongful issuance of certain checks for purchase of items knowing she did not or would not have sufficient funds available.  

On 1 Apr 1996, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the letter of notification, consulted legal counsel and submitted a statement in her own behalf.  

The staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient to support the basis for separation.    

On 25 Apr 1996, the applicant was discharged with service characterized as a general (under honorable conditions) with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct.” 

She served on active duty for four years, ten months and one day.   

On 5 Nov 2013, the AFBCMR staff offered the applicant an opportunity to provide information pertaining to her activities since leaving the service.  In response to the request, the applicant states that following her discharge in 1996, she worked for the United Parcel Service (UPS).  She was promoted to supervisor after 6 months and moved from Maryland to Iowa maintaining her employment with UPS.  She then moved to Ohio, and up until a year ago worked for the Post Office.  She now has lupus and fibromyalgia and can no longer work.  She has an Associate’s degree and is currently working on her Bachelor of Arts degree.  

The applicant provides a personal statement, letter of acceptance from the University of South Carolina, certificates and letters of recognition.
 
Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.  

________________________________________________________________ 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR states that the applicant’s character of discharge and narrative reason for separation is appropriate as indicated.  The documentation on file in her master personnel records support the basis for discharge.  The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  Furthermore, the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing and provided no facts warranting a change to her character of service.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

DPSOA states the applicant’s Reentry (RE) code of 4H which denotes “Serving suspended punishment pursuant to Article     15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)” is erroneous and pending the final decision by the Board, DPSOA will administratively correct her RE Code to 2B which denotes “Separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC).”  The correct RE code should have been updated when she was approved for an involuntary discharge with a general character of service.  If the Board grants the applicant’s  request for an upgrade to her discharge, her RE code will automatically be changed to 2C which denotes “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service.” 

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 31 May 2013, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant (Exhibit E) for review and comment within 30 days.  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 find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred during the discharge process.  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 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-2013-01163 in Executive Session on 5 Dec 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
         , Member
         , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Feb 2013, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 24 Apr 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 14 May 2013.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 May 2013.  
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Nov 2013, w/atch.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Nov 2013, w/atchs.
    



                                    
                                   Panel Chair