RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01050
            INDEX NUMBER:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  J.C. HERNANDEZ

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her narrative reason for separation be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Item 28, “Narrative Reason for Separation”  on  her  DD  Form  214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty,  should  have
been left blank.  Her Article 15, extra duty, and demotion  already
covered the punishments for remarks under  Item  28.   This  is  an
injustice to her and several perspective employers have pointed  it
out to her.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her enlistment in the  Regular  Air  Force  on
8 Sep 86, for a period of four years in the grade of airman  basic.
She served on  continuous  active  duty  until  her  administrative
discharge on 24 Oct 91.  Her highest grade held was sergeant.   She
was reduced to the grade of airman first  class,  effective  17 Sep
91, as a result of punishment imposed under Article 15, UCMJ.

On 3 Oct 91, the squadron commander notified the applicant that  he
was recommending she be discharged from the  Air  Force  for  minor
disciplinary  infractions.   The  commander  cited  the   following
reasons  for  the  proposed  discharge  action:   (1)   Record   of
individual counseling on 16 Oct 87, for failure to go on  or  about
8 Oct 87; (2) Record of individual counseling  on  4  Feb  88,  for
failure to go on or about 2 Feb 88; (3) Letter of  reprimand  (LOR)
on 29 Mar 88, for failure to go on or about 29 Mar 88; (4)  Article
15 on 22 May 89, for failure to obey a lawful order on 8 May 89  to
report to the hospital for urinalysis testing;  punishment  imposed
consisted of a suspended reduction to  the  grade  of  airman,  and
suspended forfeiture of $75.00 pay per month for  two  months;  (5)
Record of individual counseling on 19 Jun 89, for failure to go  on
or about 19 Jun 89; (6) Record of individual counseling on  24  Jun
89, for failure  to  go  on  or  about  24  Jun  89;  (7)  LOR  and
unfavorable information file (UIF) on  3 May 90, for making a false
official statement on 28 Apr 90; (8) LOR on 3 Sep 91,  for  failure
to go on or about 12 and 19 Aug 91; and (9) Article 15  on  17  Sep
91, for failure to go on or about  4  Sep  91;  punishment  imposed
consisted  of  reduction  to  the  grade  of  airman  first  class,
suspended forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for two  months,  and
restriction to the base for 30 days.

On 3 Oct  91,  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  discharge
notification, that she had consulted with military counsel and  was
submitting statements in her own  behalf.   The  wing  staff  judge
advocate  found  the  case  file  legally  sufficient  to   support
discharge.  The discharge authority  approved  the  separation  and
directed a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 24 Oct 91, applicant was discharged in the grade of airman first
class, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, by reason of misconduct –
pattern   of   minor   disciplinary   infractions,   with   service
characterized as under honorable  conditions  (general).   She  was
credited with 5 years, 1 month, and  17  days  of  active  military
service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial.
They stated, in part, that based on the documentation  on  file  in
the master personnel records, the  discharge  was  consistent  with
procedural  and   substantive   requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation.   Additionally,  the  applicant   provided   no   facts
warranting a change to the narrative reason for separation.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 23 Apr 04 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.  (Exhibit D)

___________________________________________________________________

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; however, we are not persuaded that the narrative  reason  for
separation should be changed.   The  discharge  appears  to  be  in
compliance with the governing regulation 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.  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, repeated  incidents  of
failure to go, and making a false  official  statement.   We  agree
with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force  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, based on the available evidence  of
record, we find no basis  upon  which  to  favorably  consider  her
request to change or delete the narrative reason for her discharge.

___________________________________________________________________

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-2004-
01050 in Executive Session on 24 June 2004, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Mar 04, w/atchs
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Apr 04
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Apr 04




                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair