RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02007
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

                 COUNSEL:


                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her  narrative  reason  for  separation  be  changed  to   Secretarial
Authority.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She believed someone was trying to poison her  and  nothing  was  done
about it.

In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal statement,
DD Form 214 certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty,  and
case documents from the Air Force Discharge Review Board.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 31 May 2000, for  a
period of four years.

On 12 August 2003, the applicant was notified by her commander that he
was  recommending  she  be  discharged  from   the   Air   Force   for
unsatisfactory duty performance.  The basis for the action was  on  12
April 2002, she received a Record of Individual Counseling  (RIC)  for
behavior in an unprofessional, rude and disrespectful manner to two co-
workers, on 14 June 2002, she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for
failure to progress on the weight management program, on 10  September
2002, she received a  LOR  for  failure  to  progress  on  the  weight
management program, on 25 September 2002,she  received  counseling  to
discuss weight management techniques, on 8 October 2002, a  memorandum
for record was initiated for repeatedly reporting  to  work  late,  on
2 December 2002, a memorandum for record was initiated for failure  to
meet weight standards, failure to use the chain  of  command  and  not
meeting qualification requirements for position, on 7 April 2003,  she
received a RIC for failure to maintain qualification  commensurate  to
skill level, on 7 April 2003,  she  received  a  LOR  for  failure  to
maintain military bearing, on 9 April 2003, she  received  a  LOR  for
failure  to  follow  chain  of  command  and  inappropriate  emotional
outburst, on 9 July 2003, a memorandum for record  was  initiated  for
failure to maintain  military  bearing,  and  on  29  July  2003,  she
received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for dereliction of duty.

She refused to acknowledge her right to consult  counsel  and  elected
not to submit statements in her own behalf.   The  base  legal  office
reviewed the case and found  it  legally  sufficient.   The  discharge
authority approved the discharge and directed she be discharged with a
general (under honorable conditions) discharge without  probation  and
rehabilitation.  She  was  separated  on  21 August  2003,  under  the
provisions  of  AFI  36-3208,  Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen,
(unsatisfied performance), with a general (under honorable conditions)
discharge.  She received an RE code of 2B “Separated with a general or
under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge”.  She  served
3 years, 2 months and 21 days total active service.

On 13 September 2003, the applicant submitted an  application  to  the
Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) requesting her  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to  honorable,  change  of
reason for separation and change of RE code.  The DRB  concluded  that
the positive aspects of the applicant’s  duty  performance  outweighed
the negative and that the characterization  of  the  member’s  service
justified an upgrade to honorable.  The DRB upgraded her discharge  to
honorable, but denied her request for a change of narrative reason and
RE code.  (Exhibit B)

The applicant was initially  issued  RE  code  2B  “Separated  with  a
general or under the other than honorable conditions discharge.  Since
the DRB changed her discharge to honorable, she was issued an RE  code
of 2C “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge;  or  entry
level separation without characterization of service” to coincide with
her honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  Based upon  the  documentation  in  the
master  personnel  record,  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the  discharge  regulation.
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 processing.  Her  separation
was involuntary and she has provided no facts warranting a  change  to
her reenlistment eligibility code or narrative reason for separation.

The DPPRS 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
16 Jul 04, for review and comment within 30 days.  As  of  this  date,
this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  We note the action  taken  by
the DRB in upgrading of the applicant’s discharge to honorable.  After
reviewing the evidence of record to include applicant’s submission, we
are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of  an  error
or injustice.  In this respect, we note the circumstances  surrounding
applicant’s separation and it appears that the  narrative  reason  for
her separation was appropriate.  In addition, the  change  in  the  RE
code to “2C” when her discharge was upgraded also  appears  to  be  in
accordance with the applicable Air Force instructions.  Therefore,  in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis
to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
02007 in Executive Session on 14 September 2004, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
                 Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Apr 04, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 Jul 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Jul 04.





      OLGA M. CRERAR
      Panel Chair