RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00912
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of  2B,  “Separated  with  a
general    or     under-other-than-honorable-conditions     (UOTHC)
discharge,” be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There is no error in her records; she  would  just  like  a  second
chance.  She enjoyed her time in the Air Force and now  feels  that
she can be an asset.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  16  Apr  98  for  a
period of four years in the grade of airman  basic  (AB/E-1).   Her
highest grade held was airman (E-2).

On 22 Sep  99,  the  squadron  commander  initiated  administrative
discharge  action  against  the  applicant  for  Misconduct,  Minor
Disciplinary Infractions.  The specific reasons  for  the  proposed
action were:

On or about 27 Jan 99, applicant failed  to  go  to  her  appointed
place of duty, for which she received a  no-show  letter  from  the
dental clinic.

Between 31 Mar 99 and 5 Apr 99, she failed to go  to  Bay  Orderly.
On 8 Apr 99, she wrongfully used foul and provoking  words  towards
one of her peers.  For this misconduct, she received an Article 15.
 The Article 15 punishment imposed on the  applicant  consisted  of
reduction to the grade of airman basic, forfeiture of $200 pay  per
month  for  two  months,  30 days  of  correctional  custody,   and
establishment of an unfavorable information file (UIF).

On or about 17 Apr 99, she was derelict in the performance  of  her
duties, by refusing to serve a customer at the Diners  Reef  Dining
facility, for which she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

On or about 26 Apr 99, applicant was disrespectful to her  superior
noncommissioned officer by not acknowledging  him,  for  which  she
received a letter of counseling (LOC).

On or about 28 Apr 99, applicant was disrespectful to her  superior
noncommissioned officer by turning her  back  on  him  and  walking
away, for which she received an LOC.

On 19 Jul 99 and 29 Jul 99, she failed to go to the  pre-Change  of
Command formation.  For these actions, she received an  LOR,  which
was placed in her existing UIF.

On or about 8 Aug 99, she was derelict in the  performance  of  her
duties by willfully throwing out two dozen eggs so as not to  serve
customers and wrongfully used foul and provoking  words  towards  a
civilian contractor.  For this misconduct, she received an  Article
15.  The Article 15 punishment imposed on the  applicant  consisted
of forfeiture of $479 pay per month  for  two  months,  45 days  of
extra duty, and restriction to the base.

Applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge  notification.   On
27 Sep 99, after consulting with counsel, she submitted  statements
in her own behalf, along with character references.  On 30 Sep  99,
the Staff Judge Advocate found the case file legally sufficient  to
justify  an  administrative   discharge   for   misconduct,   minor
disciplinary infractions and  recommended  that  the  applicant  be
separated  with  a  general   discharge,   without   probation   or
rehabilitation.  On 5 Oct 99, the discharge  authority  approved  a
general discharge, without probation and rehabilitation.

On 7 Oct 99, the applicant was discharged under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-3208 by reason of misconduct, with service characterized  as
general (under honorable conditions), and was issued  RE  code  2B.
She served 1 year, 5 months, and 22 days on active duty.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial.
They found that the discharge was consistent  with  the  procedural
and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge   regulation.
Additionally, that the discharge was within the sound discretion of
the discharge authority.  They also noted that  the  applicant  did
not submit any new evidence or identify any  errors  or  injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing nor did she  provide  any
facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE also reviewed this application and indicated that the
RE code of 2B, “Involuntarily separated with  a  general  or  under
other than honorable conditions discharge” is correct.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant
on 4 Jun 03 for review and comment within  30  days.   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 error or injustice.   At  the  time  a
member is separated from the Air Force, they are  furnished  an  RE
Code  predicated  upon  the  quality  of  their  service  and   the
circumstances of their separation.  The assigned code reflects  the
Air Force’s position  regarding  whether  or  not,  or  under  what
circumstances, the individual should be allowed to reenlist.  After
careful  consideration  of  the  evidence  provided,  we  are   not
persuaded that the assigned RE code is in error or unjust  or  that
an upgrade of the RE code is warranted.  We therefore conclude that
no basis exists upon which to recommend  favorable  action  on  the
applicant’s request that it be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2003-00912  in  Executive  Session  on  20  Aug  03,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Ms. Leslie Abbott, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Mar 03.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 15 Apr 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 3 Jun 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 03.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair