RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03997
            INDEX NUMBER: 100.00, 110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her narrative reason for separation  and  reenlistment  eligibility
(RE) code be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Employers are not hiring her because of her reason  for  separation
and RE code.  She feels this is unjust and the narrative reason for
separation should not still say misconduct.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 28  Sep  98,  for  a
period of four years in the grade of airman basic.

On 29 Sep 99, the squadron commander notified the applicant that he
was recommending she be discharged from the Air Force for a pattern
of misconduct (conduct prejudicial to good order  and  discipline).
The  commander  cited  the  following  reasons  for  the   proposed
discharge action:  (1) Applicant’s receipt  of  an  Article  15  on
23 Aug 99, for failure to obey a lawful order on or  about  12  Aug
99, and failure to go on or about 14 Aug  99.   Punishment  imposed
consisted of restriction to the base for  14  days,  and  14  days’
extra duty; (2) Applicant’s receipt of an Article 15 on 2  Sep  99,
for shoplifting.  Punishment imposed consisted of reduction to  the
grade of airman basic, restriction to the base for 45 days, and  45
days’ extra duty.

On 4 Oct  99,  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  discharge
notification, that she had consulted with military counsel and  was
submitting statements in her own behalf.  On 12 Oct 99,  the  group
Staff Judge Advocate found the  case  file  legally  sufficient  to
support discharge.

Applicant was discharged on 19 Oct  99,  in  the  grade  of  airman
basic,  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3208,  by   reason   of
misconduct,  with  service   characterized   as   under   honorable
conditions (general).  She was issued an RE Code of  2B  [separated
with a general discharge].  She served on active duty for a  period
of one year and 22 days.

On 17 Apr 00, applicant applied to the Air Force  Discharge  Review
Board (AFDRB) requesting her discharge be upgraded to an  honorable
discharge.  After review of  the  evidence  of  record,  the  AFDRB
upgraded applicant’s discharge  from  a  general  (under  honorable
conditions) to an honorable discharge on 29 Jun 00.  The Board  did
not change the narrative reason for discharge.  A copy of the AFDRB
Hearing Record is attached at Exhibit C.

The applicant’s records were administratively corrected on  12  Jul
00 to reflect an honorable discharge and RE Code 2C  [involuntarily
separated with an honorable discharge].

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial.
They stated, in part, that the AFDRB concluded  the  discharge  was
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of  the
discharge regulation  and  was  within  the  discharge  authority’s
discretion, and that the applicant was provided full administrative
due process.  The AFDRB further concluded that the overall  quality
of the applicant’s service was  more  accurately  reflected  by  an
honorable discharge.  The applicant’s characterization of discharge
was changed to honorable.  They noted the 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 a change to the narrative reason for  discharge
or reenlistment code.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 6 Feb 04 for review and comment within  30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.  (Exhibit E)

__________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient  relevant   evidence   has   been   presented   to
demonstrate the existence of error  or  injustice.   The  discharge
appears to be in compliance with the governing instruction  and  we
find no evidence to indicate that applicant’s separation  from  the
Air Force was inappropriate or that it was  based  on  any  factors
other than  her  own  misconduct.   We  note  that  the  Air  Force
Discharge  Review  Board  upgraded  the  characterization  of   her
discharge to honorable.  However, we are  not  persuaded  that  the
narrative reason for separation should be changed.  The reason  for
separation  is  supported  by  the  evidence   of   record;   i.e.,
misconduct, as evidenced by  the  applicant’s  failure  to  obey  a
lawful  order,  failure  to   go,   and   wrongful   appropriation.
Additionally, the assigned reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C
accurately reflects her involuntary separation  with  an  honorable
discharge.  Therefore, based on the available evidence  of  record,
we find no basis upon which to favorably consider  her  request  to
change the narrative reason for her discharge or  her  reenlistment
eligibility code.

___________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number BC-2003-
03997 in Executive Session on 29 April 2004, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein Jr., Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Nov 03, w/atchs
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
    Exhibit C.  AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 12 Jul 00, w/atchs
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 28 Jan 04
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Feb 04




                                   JACKSON A. HAUSLEIN JR.
                                   Panel Chair