RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-03339
            INDEX CODE:  100.00, 100.06
                              110.02
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge   be   upgraded   to
honorable; the reason for her  discharge  be  changed  from  Misconduct-Drug
Abuse to Convenience of the Government;  and  her  reenlistment  eligibility
(RE) code be changed from 2B to 1A.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When she was discharged from the Air Force, she was led to believe that  her
discharge would automatically be reviewed and upgraded to  honorable  within
6 months of her separation date.

There are 10  issues  that  she  believes  are  relevant  to  upgrading  her
discharge and admits to her shortcomings while in the Air  Force.   A  major
issue that impaired her ability to serve  was  her  marital  problems.   Her
husband mentally and physically abused her.

She notes that her discharge case file contained  a  number  of  errors  and
omissions.  Furthermore, she was denied the opportunity  to  participate  in
the Drug Rehabilitation Program.

Since her discharge, she has  completed  Ja’onna’s  Medical  and  Laboratory
Skills  Training  Program.   She  is  certified  to  work  in  the   medical
laboratory and is currently seeking employment.  She believes she  has  paid
for her mistakes while in the Air Force  and  would  like  some  closure  by
having this black mark removed from her records.   In  addition,  she  would
like to relieve her father from the shame and embarrassment she caused  him.
 Before he passes on, she would  like  to  present  an  Honorable  Discharge
certificate  to  her  father.   She  requests  the  Board  to  consider  her
situation at the time and allow her to have closure on this portion  of  her
life.

In support of her application, the applicant  provided  personal  statements
and documents associated with her discharge and her appeal to the  Discharge
Review Board.  Her complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 2 December 1982, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  for  a
period of 4 years in the grade of airman first class (E-3).   Following  her
successful completion of training, she was assigned to duties in  Air  Force
Specialty Code (AFSC) 92430, Medical Laboratory  Specialist.   She  received
two Airman Performance Reports (APRs) for the periods ending  25  July  1984
and  5  July  1985,  in  which  the  overall  evaluations  were  9  and   4,
respectively.

On 4 February 1985,  the  applicant  was  counseled  for  tardiness  on  two
occasions and substandard duty performance.  Based  on  the  foregoing,  the
applicant was advised that she was being referred for  a  commander-directed
urinalysis.  The applicant refused to acknowledge receipt of  the  foregoing
information.  Subsequent to this  time,  on  several  occasions  during  the
months of February and March 1985, it was  reported  in  memoranda  for  the
record that the applicant was observed dozing on the job, that she had  been
late for work, and that her duty performance was not  “pulling  her  weight”
at work.  On 20 March 1985, the applicant was nonrecommended  for  promotion
to the grade of senior airman (E-4).

On 14 June 1985, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand based  on  the
allegation that she had made false statements to  her  superiors  concerning
the theft of her automobile on 4 June 1985.

On 31 July 1985, nonjudicial punishment was imposed on the  applicant  under
Article 15, UCMJ, based on the allegation that she had failed to go  at  the
time prescribed to her appointed place of duty on 26  June  1985.   She  was
reduced in grade to airman; and, was ordered to forfeit  $150.00  per  month
for 1 month and to perform 14 days of extra duty.   However,  the  reduction
in grade was suspended until 30 January 1986, at which time,  unless  sooner
vacated, it  would  be  remitted  without  further  action.   The  applicant
appealed the punishment to a superior commander and her appeal  was  denied.
The suspended portion of the  punishment  pertaining  to  the  reduction  in
grade was vacated on  23  August  1985  based  on  an  allegation  that  the
applicant had failed to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place  of
duty on 20 August 1985.  The applicant was reduced in rank to airman  (E-2),
with a date of rank of 31 July 1985.

In the meantime, on 14 August  1985,  the  applicant’s  commander  issued  a
written reprimand to the applicant  for  possession  of  drug  paraphernalia
consisting of two hypodermic syringes and a rubber tourniquet  on  29  March
1985.

On 30 August 1985, the  applicant’s  commander  was  advised  that  a  urine
specimen provided by the applicant on 20 August  1985  tested  positive  for
amphetamine and methamphetamine.

On 19 September 1985, the  applicant’s  commander  initiated  administrative
separation proceedings against her for unsatisfactory performance  and  drug
abuse.  The applicant was advised of her rights in the  matter  and  that  a
general discharge would be recommended.   After  consulting  military  legal
counsel,  the  applicant  submitted  statements  in  her  own  behalf.   The
commander thereafter initiated discharge proceedings against the  applicant.
 In a legal review of the discharge case file, dated  23  October  1985,  an
assistant staff  judge  advocate  found  the  file  legally  sufficient  and
recommended that she be discharge  with  a  general  discharge  without  the
offer of probation and rehabilitation.  On 29 October  1985,  the  discharge
authority approved the recommendation for discharge by reason of drug  abuse
and directed that she be given a general  discharge  without  probation  and
rehabilitation.  From 10 November to 13 December  1985,  the  applicant  was
placed in a medical hold status and, on the latter date, she was  discharged
because  of  drug  abuse  with  a  general  (under   honorable   conditions)
discharge.  She had served 3 years and 12 days on active  duty.   An  RE  2B
was assigned.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Separations  Branch,   AFPC/DPPRS   reviewed   this   application   and
recommended denial. AFPC/DPPRS indicates that based upon  the  documentation
presented, the discharge is consistent with  the  discharge  regulation  and
was within the sound discretion of the discharge  authority.   In  addition,
applicant did not  submit  any  new  evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  A  complete  copy  of
this evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Special Programs/BCMR  Manager,  AFPC/DPPAES  reviewed  the  applicant’s
request for a change of RE code and recommended  denial.   DPPAES  indicated
that  the  applicant’s  reenlistment  eligibility  code  2B,  “Involuntarily
separated under AFR  39-10  with  less  than  an  honorable  discharge,”  is
correct.  This advisory opinion is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  on  16
March 2001 for review and response.   As  of  this  date,  this  office  has
received no 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 probable error or injustice.  After a thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we  are  not  persuaded  that
her general discharge for misconduct  should  be  changed  to  an  honorable
discharge for  reason  of  “Convenience  of  the  Government”  or  that  her
Reenlistment Code of “2B’ be changed to “1A.”  Applicant’s  contentions  are
duly noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in  and
by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the  evidence  of  record
or the rationale provided by the Air Force.  We found no impropriety in  the
characterization of applicant's discharge. It appears that  the  responsible
officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the discharge, and  the
applicant has not provided persuasive evidence demonstrating that  pertinent
regulations were violated or that she was not afforded  all  the  rights  to
which entitled at the time  of  discharge.  Therefore,  we  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.   We  note  that  the
applicant  has  provided  no  evidence  pertaining   to   her   post-service
activities.   Should  she  provide  evidence  attesting  to  her  successful
integration into civil society following her separation and indicating  that
she is now a productive member of  her  community,  reconsideration  of  her
request for the purpose of clemency is possible.  In  the  absence  of  such
evidence or showing that the information  in  the  discharge  case  file  is
erroneous or that her commanders abused their  discretionary  authority,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 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 26 April 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Nancy W. Drury, Member
      Mr. John E. Pettit, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149 dated, 10 January 2001.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 February 2001.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAES, dated 16 February 2001.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 16 March 2001.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair