RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03646
            INDEX CODE:  100.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her discharge be upgraded from general (Under Honorable Conditions) to
honorable and that her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code  be  changed
to one that would allow her to reenlist.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She received a bad discharge  code  for  her  performance  during  the
period of September 1997 through October  1997.   While  there  is  no
excuse for her behavior, she was experiencing depression at the  time.
She notes she was late for work on many occasions but that she and her
supervisor had worked out a flexible work schedule.  For  some  reason
however, her supervisor started writing her up for being late.   While
she  believes  her  behavior  was  wrong,  she  also  notes  that  her
supervisor may have felt threatened by  her  quick  rise  through  the
ranks to technical sergeant (TSgt/E-6).  She questions the  legitimacy
of receiving a “fair” discharge along with a bad RE code.  She  states
she did not fight her involuntary discharge or demotion  and  she  did
not question her service characterization or RE code because  she  was
timid and afraid of the consequences of  a  court  martial.   She  was
raised in the military as her father  was  in  the  Army.   She  loved
serving her country and did so for 12 years and 9  months.   She  does
not want that time to go to waste.  She has paid into the GI Bill  and
would like to use that as well as return to the service to qualify for
a retirement.

In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided  several  letters
of  support  and  recommendation,  copies  of   certain   awards   and
decorations and associated paperwork,  copies  of  Airman  Performance
Reports for the period 1 February 1990 through 30 October 1997, copies
of three distinct DD Forms 214, Certificate of  Release  or  Discharge
from Active Duty, and a copy of her involuntary discharge package.

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

_________________________________________________________________





STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a former member of the California  Air  National  Guard
(CAANG) received a letter of reprimand (LOR) on 16 September 1997  for
being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 9-15  September  1997
(repeatedly late for duty),  and  16 September  1997  for  failing  to
report for duty.  She had been previously counseled for other  periods
of tardiness on 12 March and 10 April  1997.   Additionally,  she  was
cited by memorandum for the record (MFR) for being late  for  duty  on
18, 19, 24 and 25 September 1997 and was warned by her  supervisor  of
an impending Article 15 should her tardiness continue.   She  received
LOR’s for tardiness on 5 October 1997 and 11 January 1998 and received
an Article 15 on 7 November  1997  (resulting  in  demotion  to  Staff
Sergeant – E-5) and an Article 15 on 17 April 1998.  She  was  ordered
to submit to a drug test and after providing a sample admitted to  her
supervisor that she expected the result to  be  positive  as  she  had
smoked  marijuana  the  week  before.   The  Air  Office  of   Special
Investigations (AFOSI) conducted an investigation into the  matter  in
conjunction with the judge  advocate’s  (JA)  office.   Several  weeks
later the test results returned with a negative finding.  On 22  April
1998, her Wing commander notified her that he was recommending she  be
discharged  from  the  CAANG  with  an  Under  Other  Than   Honorable
Conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge  for  a  pattern  of  misconduct.   The
notification included a statement to her indicating that her discharge
would make her ineligible for further military service.  She was given
the opportunity to consult counsel and  submit  statements.   She  was
given the opportunity to request a hearing and chose not to do so.  On
23 April 1998 she was demoted to Senior Airman (SRA/E-4) and  given  5
days to appeal her punishment.  On 31 May 1998, she was discharged  in
the grade of SRA with a general (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge
after serving a total of 12 years, 8 months and 16  days  of  combined
Reserve and active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPPI recommends denial.  DPPI cites Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-
3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard  and
Air Force Reserve Members, and states an honorable discharge  is  only
justified when the “…quality of the member’s service generally has met
USAF  standards  of  acceptable  conduct  and  performance  of  duty.”
“General  (Under  Honorable  Conditions)  discharge   is   appropriate
when…significant negative aspects of conduct or  performance  of  duty
outweigh positive aspects of  the  member’s  military  record.”   DPPI
states she did not  meet  the  standards  required  for  an  honorable
discharge.   Further,  she  was  discharged  in  accordance  with  all
prescribed




instructions, given the opportunity to  appeal  and  consult  counsel.
She waived her rights to counsel and court-martial hearing.



DPPI’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air National  Guard  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 25 June 2004 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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case  and
while we sympathize with her situation at the time and appreciate  her
candor in accepting responsibility, there  was  insufficient  evidence
presented to justify granting the  requested  relief.   Therefore,  we
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the  Air  National  Guard
office of primary responsibility and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of
an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence  to  the
contrary, we find  no  compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the
requested relief.
_________________________________________________________________

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-
2003-03646  in  Executive  Session  on  10  August  2004,  under   the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
      Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Nov 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 9 Jun 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jun 04.




                                   JOHN L. ROBUCK
                                   Panel Chair