RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02531
            INDEX CODE:  100, 100.03

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The  narrative  reason  for  her  separation  on  her  DD   Form   214
(Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) be changed from
Miscellaneous/General Reasons  to  financial  hardship  and  that  her
reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There are multiple errors on her DD Form 214:

      1.    Item 12h (Record of Service), Effective Date of Pay Grade,
should be 1990, Jan, 01;

      2.    Item 13 (Decorations) should reflect the missing Air Force
Achievement Medal (AFAM), Noncommissioned Officer  (NCO)  Professional
Military Education Graduate Ribbon with one (1) basic Oak Leaf Cluster
(OLC), Humanitarian Service Medal, Air Force Organizational Excellence
Award with one (1) basic OLC, and, Air Force Longevity  Service  Award
(AFLSA) should be with two (2) basic OLCs not three (3) OLCs;

      3.    Item 14 (Military Education) is incomplete;

      4.    Item 27 (Reentry Code) is the wrong code; and,

      5.    Item  28  (Narrative  Reason  for  Separation)  should  be
financial hardship.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military  Service  Date  (TAFMSD)
was 17 Apr 80.

AF Form 108, Weight  Program  Processing,  reflected  the  applicant’s
weight status code was updated to 3 (Observation Period  (Phase  II)),
effective 9 May 95.

On 7 Jun 95, applicant requested an early separation because remaining
in the military caused  her  family  undue  financial  hardship.   She
stated her financial problems caused her to experience a high level of
stress which she felt interfered with her ability to be  a  productive
Air Force member.  She requested a separation date of 25 Jun 95.   The
commander approved her request.

On 1 Jul 95, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of  AFI
36-3208 (Miscellaneous/General Reasons)  in  the  grade  of  technical
sergeant with an honorable characterization of service, an RE code  of
4J (Entered into Phase I of the Air Force Weight Program, or the  unit
commander has declared the airman ineligible to reenlist for a  period
of  Phase  II  or  probation),  and   a   separation   code   of   KND
(Miscellaneous/General Reasons).  She was credited with  15  years,  2
months, and 15 days of active service.

On 29 Oct 98, the Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPRA,  forwarded
a letter to the applicant verifying that the applicant was entitled to
the additional awards  and  decorations  and  that  the  AFLSA  should
reflect only 2 OLCs.  DPPPRA indicated that applicant’s  records  were
forwarded to the appropriate office to  have  these  corrections  made
(see TAB 1).

A new DD Form 214 was issued to include the missing information,  such
as schools attended, decorations received  and  applicant’s  effective
date of pay grade.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel  Management  Specialist,  AFPC/DPPRS,  reviewed
this application and indicated that although the applicant stated  the
reason for separation was for financial hardship, there is no evidence
to indicate that her application  was  submitted  under  the  hardship
provisions of AFI 36-3208.  The case has been reviewed for  separation
processing and there  are  no  errors  or  irregularities  causing  an
injustice to the  applicant.   She  received  an  early  miscellaneous
discharge for  financial  hardships.   The  separation  complies  with
directives in effect at  the  time  of  her  discharge.   The  records
indicate her military service was reviewed and appropriate action  was
taken.  She did not identify any specific  errors  in  the  separation
processing nor provide facts which warrant a change in  the  narrative
reason for her separation.  Accordingly, DPPRS recommends  applicant’s
requests be denied.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE,  also  reviewed  this
application  and  indicated  that  no  evidence  exists  to   indicate
applicant’s  commander  recommended  her  for  reenlistment  once  she
entered the observation period of the Weight  Program  Processing  and
DPPAE recommended denial of the applicant’s request for correction  of
her RE code.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were  forwarded  to  applicant  on
25 Jan 99 for review and response.  As of this date, no  response  has
been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded  that  she  should  be  given  the  requested  relief.   Her
contentions  are  duly  noted;  however,  we   do   not   find   these
uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and   by   themselves,   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air  Force.   We
therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air  Force  and  adopt
the rationale expressed  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain  her  burden  that  she  has  suffered
either an error or an injustice.  Therefore,  we  find  no  compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.    Regarding applicant’s contentions that multiple errors  were  on
her DD Form 214, we note that she has been provided an amended DD Form
214  with  the   applicable   corrections   verified   and   corrected
administratively.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 9 September 1999, under  the  provisions  of  Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
                  Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
                Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Sep 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 Oct 98.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 24 Nov 98.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Jan 99.




                                   DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                   Panel Chair