RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03055

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The reason for her general (under honorable conditions)  discharge  be
changed to reflect hardship.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was not provided full administrative due  process.   The  evidence
proves that there were several family hardships and medical  hardships
that would warrant a discharge due to hardship.  She loves her country
and was willing to do what ever it took for her country; however,  her
country was not willing to examine below the surface to find the  real
problems.  She was really confused for a while;  however,  she  was  a
great student in high school and college, and never was in any trouble
with the law.  It was not until recently, 13  years  later,  when  she
became pregnant  again  that  she  realized  she  had  these  prenatal
problems.  She received much counseling and medication to offset these
mental imbalances during her recent pregnancy.

She is asking the Board to please carefully examine the evidence  that
she has presented to the Board and change her discharge to “Hardship”.
 The Board has the opportunity to once again make her proud  to  serve
in the United States Air Force.

In support of her appeal, the applicant submits a personal statement.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 6 January 1987 at the age of  21,
completed  basic  military  training  and  served  as   an   Inventory
Management Specialist.  She married either just prior  to  the  Report
for the period of 6 January 1987 to 5 January 1988  reflected  overall
satisfactory performance  but  narrative  comments  indicated  concern
regarding a  lack  of  initiative,  requirement  for  constant  direct
supervision, recurrent tardiness, placing personal  matters  ahead  of
mission accomplishment, and  little  regard  for  military  standards.
“Amn W____ has been counseled  on  several  occasions  but  has  shown
little improvement.”  Her outstanding academic scores  on  her  career
development course work reflected excellent career potential.

On 18 March 1987, she was disciplined with an Article 15 for exceeding
the extended limits of Lowry AFB of 150 miles, and being  absent  from
her place of duty on or about 8 March 1987 to 9 March 1987.   She  was
counseled (Record of Counseling) on       6  October  1987  for  being
late for duty.  She received a Letter of Reprimand on 9 November  1987
for Failure to  go  and  lying  to  her  supervisor.   She  was  again
disciplined with an Article 15 on     8 February 1988 for  failure  to
go (failed to report for open ranks inspection).  On 12 February 1988,
her pregnancy  was  diagnosed  when  she  was  approximately  8  weeks
pregnant.

She received her third Article 15 on 24 March 1988 for failure  to  go
and failure to pay just debts.  Her NCO membership was terminated  for
a delinquent account and writing bad  checks  in  February  and  March
1988.  She received a Letter of Reprimand  for  failure  to  pay  just
debts on 29 June 1988.  She received her fourth Article 15 for failure
to pay just debts on 1 August 1988 (for debts dating to 1 May 1988).

She delivered her child on 3 October 1988.  During labor, the delivery
was characterized by “severe decelerations”, an  indication  of  fetal
distress during labor, however  she  delivered  her  without  apparent
further complication.

She received a Letter of Reprimand for failure to pay just debts on 28
October 1988.

On  23  November  1988,  applicant’s  commander  recommended  she   be
discharged for a pattern of misconduct.  Her commander  recommended  a
general discharge.  Basis for the action was a Letter  of  Counseling,
in October 1987, for failure to report to duty two  consecutive  days;
four Letters of Reprimand--30 November 1987 and 8 March 1988,  failure
to report to duty and lying to her supervisor, and 29 June 1988 and 28
October 1988, failure to pay debts; and  an  Article  15,  21  January
1988, for failure to report for open ranks inspection.  All incidences
of misconduct are well documented in her  records.   Member  consulted
with legal counsel and waiver her right to submit  statements  in  her
behalf.  Probation and rehabilitation (P&R) were considered but deemed
inappropriate because she had failed  to  improve  her  misconduct  on
numerous occasions.  The base  legal  office  reviewed  the  case  and
determined it  was  legally  sufficient  to  support  discharge.   The
Discharge Authority approved the  separation  and  ordered  a  general
discharge without probation and rehabilitation on 6 December 1988.

The applicant was involuntarily discharged under the provisions of AFR
39-10 (pattern of misconduct prejudicial to good order and discipline)
with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions)  on
8 December 1988 in the grade of airman basic.  She served 1  year,  11
months and 2 days of active service.

On 11 January 2001, the Air Force Discharge Review  Board  denied  the
applicant’s request to upgrade her discharge (Exhibit B).
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no  change  in  the
records is warranted based  on  medical  issues.   The  applicant  was
administratively  discharged  for   misconduct   including   financial
irresponsibility, repeated tardiness, absenting herself from her place
of duty and lying to her supervisors.  The applicant states  that  she
experienced many effects of pregnancy that may have included “unstable
mental  alertness,  constant  mood   swings,   depression,   sickness,
disorientation, etc” and contends this  caused  her  misconduct.   She
also states that while she was on active duty her  husband  fell  into
the wrong crowd and became involved with the use of crack cocaine that
lead to financial difficulties.

The applicant’s pattern of misconduct began prior  to  her  pregnancy.
There is no evidence in the record that indicates she was experiencing
any of the mood disturbances that many  women  experience.   The  mood
disturbances of pregnancy  do  not  cause  misconduct  of  the  nature
demonstrated by the applicant.  There is no evidence of mental illness
that would have impaired her judgment, ability to control her  actions
or  understand  the  consequences  of  her  actions.   Her   financial
difficulties appear to have also predated her pregnancy  evidenced  in
the delinquency on her NCO Club bill in  February  1988.   Action  and
disposition in this case are proper  equitable  reflecting  compliance
with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The BCMR Medical Consultant the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS  recommended  denial  and  stated  that  based   upon   the
documentation in the file, they believe the discharge  was  consistent
with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion  of
the discharge authority.  Applicant did not submit any new evidence or
identify any errors or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge
proceedings.  Additionally, the applicant provided no facts warranting
an  upgrade  of  the  discharge  she  received.   Accordingly,   DPPRS
recommend her records remain the same and her request be denied.

AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 17 January 2003, for review  and  comment.   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, the Board excused
the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice.  The  applicant's  contentions
are duly noted; however, we agree with  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant
that there is no evidence  to  support  her  current  claim  that  she
suffered  from  mental  imbalances  during  her  pregnancy  that  were
responsible for her altered behavior patterns.  After a careful review
of the evidence of record, we are of the opinion that the  applicant's
pattern of misconduct began prior to her pregnancy and that  there  is
no evidence of mental illness that would have impaired her  judgement,
ability to control her actions or understand the consequences  of  her
actions.  Furthermore, we found no indication that the  actions  taken
to affect her discharge were improper or contrary to the provisions of
the governing regulations in effect at the time, or that  the  actions
taken against the applicant were based on factors other than  her  own
misconduct.  In view of the above and absent  persuasive  evidence  to
the contrary, 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 a 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  02-03055
in Executive Session on 25 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Sep 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 12 Dec 02
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 8 Jan 03
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 03.







      ROBERT S. BOYD
      Panel Chair