ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00255
            INDEX CODE:  110.00, 112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her  narrative  reason  for  separation  (Marginal  Performer  Assigned   to
Organizational Unit)  and  her  separation  program  designator  (SPD)  code
changed.  In addition to her request for reconsideration, she  requests  her
Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code (2P) changed.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27 June 1979 in the grade  of
airman basic for a period of four years.

On 5 December 1980, the applicant was notified of her commander's intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon her for the following:  she  did,  on  or
about 4 December 1980, assault an airman by spraying her  in  the  eye  with
window cleaner.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived her right to a trial  by
court-martial, desired to make an oral  presentation,  submitted  a  written
presentation, and did not desire  that it be public.

She was found guilty by her commander who imposed the following  punishment:
 reduction in grade from airman first class to airman and  a  forfeiture  of
$50.00 pay per month for two months.  The execution of  the  punishment  for
reduction to airman was suspended until 11 June 1981, at which time,  unless
the suspension was sooner vacated  it  would  be  remitted  without  further
action.

The applicant did not appeal the punishment.  The Article 15  was  filed  in
her Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 24 February 1981, the applicant was notified of  her  commander's  intent
to initiate discharge action against  her  for  Marginal  Performance.   The
specific reasons follow:



      a.  She did, on 19 February 1980, at Altus AFB,  Oklahoma,  failed  to
report to work on time.

      b.  She did, on 14 April 1980,  at  Altus  AFB,  Oklahoma,  failed  to
report back to work, from lunch on time.

      c.  She did, on 29 April 1980,  at  Altus  AFB,  Oklahoma,  failed  to
report to work on time.

      d.  She did on 1 August  1980,  at  Altus  AFB,  Oklahoma,  failed  to
secure the bench stock area.

      e.  She was on 14 August 1980, at Altus AFB,  Oklahoma,  disrespectful
to her fellow co-workers.

      f.  She did, on 19 September 1980, at Altus AFB, Oklahoma,  showed  no
respect for other people’s property in Building 313.

      g.  She did, on 17 September 1980, at Altus AFB,  Oklahoma,  lose  her
meal card for the second time.

      h.  She did, on 3 December 1980, at Altus AFB, Oklahoma, call  someone
a b----.  Also, she acted in a manner not conducive to the Air Force,  while
in dorm 313, with her manner of speech, which was in  violation  of  Article
117 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

      i.  Article 15 action dated 4 December 1980.

      j.  She did, on  10  February  1981,  at  Altus  AFB,  Oklahoma,  made
numerous unofficial visits to bench stock, after being told not to.

      k.  She did on 12 February 1981, at Altus  AFB,  Oklahoma,  failed  to
comply with Air Force regulations, by showing disrespect to an officer.

The commander advised the applicant of her right to  consult  legal  counsel
and to submit statements in her own behalf; or waive the above rights  after
consulting with counsel.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that  the
applicant was counseled on numerous occasions by  her  superiors,  including
the first sergeant, with negative results.  Further  rehabilitation  efforts
would not be in the best interest of the Air Force.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant  submitted  statements  in  her
own behalf.

On 10 March 1981, a legal review was conducted and the Staff Judge  Advocate
recommended the applicant be honorably discharged.



On  11  March  1981,  the  convening  authority  approved  the   applicant’s
discharge.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 13 March 1981,  in  the  grade  of
airman first  class,  in  accordance  with  AFR  39-10  (Marginal  Performer
Assigned to Organizational Unit) and given an RE  code  of  2P  -  Separated
under AFR 39-10  as  marginal  performer  or  to  preserve  good  order  and
discipline,  BMT  eliminees   discharge   due   to   erroneous   enlistment,
concealment of civilian convictions, etc.  She completed 1 year,  8  months,
and 17 days of total active duty service.

On 30 December 1981, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military  Records
(AFBCMR) denied the applicant’s request to reinstate her on active duty  and
to change the reason  and  authority  for  her  discharge.   The  Record  of
Proceedings (ROP) with attachments is at Exhibit E.

On 1 March 2005, the  Board  staff  received  the  applicant’s  request  for
reconsideration.   The  applicant  indicated  she  was  separated  from  the
service and given an honorable discharge  at  the  convenience  of  the  Air
Force.  The separation code, RE code and  narrative  reason  for  separation
has followed her for over 20 years and has hindered her opportunity to  find
employment.  She has been denied employment based on her  separation  codes.
She further indicated she  was  young,  inexperienced  and  in  a  different
environment from what she was used to - being at home.   She  indicated  she
was not guilty of any misconduct or crime and it is unfair for these  things
to be hindering her after 20 years (Exhibit F).

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated  they  were  unable  to  identify  with
arrest record on the basis of information furnished (Exhibit G).

On 3 March 2005, the Board  staff  requested  the  applicant  provide  post-
service documentation within 20 days (Exhibit H).  The applicant provided  a
criminal  history  check  from  the  Dearborn  Heights,   Michigan,   Police
Department, dated 1 March 2005, which is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice warranting  a  change  to  her  narrative
reason for separation, separation program  designator  code,  and  RE  code.
After a thorough review of  the  evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s
submission, the majority of the Board is  of  the  opinion  that  given  the
circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation  from  the  Air  Force,
the narrative reason for  separation  and  separation  codes  assigned  were
proper and in compliance with the  appropriate  directives.   The  applicant
has not provided any evidence which would  lead  us  to  believe  otherwise.
The applicant provided a personal affidavit, dated 10 July 1981,  indicating
one of the reasons for her application for review of  discharge  was  sexual
assault and harassment by fellow and  superior  Air  Force  personnel.   The
majority of the Board notes the  applicant  has  not  provided  evidence  to
support her allegations and if she provided supporting documentation  (i.e.,
eyewitness statements) they would be willing to reconsider her appeal.   The
Board advised that she contact the worldwide locator  at  HQ  AFPC  (MSIDL),
550 C Street West, Randolph  AFB,  TX   78150,  phone  number  210/565-2248.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the majority  of  the
Board finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

2.    The applicant's case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not  been
shown that a personal appearance with or  without  counsel  will  materially
add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore,  the  request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of  error  or  injustice
and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2005-
00255 in Executive Session on 5 April 2005, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                  Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
                  Mrs. Barbara R. Murray, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the  application.   Mrs.
Barbara R. Murray voted to  grant,  but  she  does  not  wish  to  submit  a
Minority Report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit E.  Record of Proceedings, dated 7 April 1982,
                W/atchs.
      Exhibit F.  DD Form 149, dated 21 December 2004, w/atchs.
      Exhibit G.  Negative FBI Report.
      Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 March 2005, w/atch.
      Exhibit I.  Letter, Dearborn Heights, MI Police Department,
                dated 1 March 2005.



                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair



AFBCMR BC-2005-00255





MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                 FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant had
not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the
case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that
relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that
the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency