RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00296
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  28 JULY 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be  upgraded  to
an honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She desires her discharge upgraded.  She indicates during her  time  in  the
Air Force she was going through a very bad time in her  life.   Her  husband
at that time, was abusive mentally, physically, and sexually.   She  further
indicates her work performance in the service was not as bad as  her  record
indicates.  She is a responsible, loving, churchgoing  person  who  at  that
time made wrong decisions and she apologizes for her actions at that time.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 December  1979  in  the
grade of airman basic.

On 22 June 1981, the applicant requested  discharge  for  the  good  of  the
service under  paragraph  2-78,  AFM  39-12.   She  indicated  he  had  been
afforded  the  opportunity  of  consulting  with   counsel   regarding   the
advisability of submitting this request for discharge.





On  23  June  1981,  the  commander  indicated  in  his  recommendation  for
discharge action that he recommended the applicant’s request  for  discharge
be approved.  The applicant committed the following  violations  of  Article
134, Uniformed  Code  of  Military  Justice,  with  potential  court-martial
charges which could lead to a punitive discharge.

        a.  On or about 23 March 1981, the applicant  did  at  Edwards  AFB,
California, make and utter  to  the  MWF,  a  certain  check  in  words  and
figures, to wit:  Check #164 in the amount of $3.85 drawn  on  the  Bank  of
America, in payment of a debt,  and  did  thereafter  dishonorably  fail  to
maintain sufficient funds in the Bank of America for payment of  such  check
upon its presentment for payment.

        b.  On or about 26 March 1981, the applicant  did  at  Edwards  AFB,
California, make and utter to the BX Service Station,  a  certain  check  in
words and figures to wit:  Check #171 in  the  amount  of  $20.00,  for  the
purchase of gasoline  and  did  thereafter  dishonorably  fail  to  maintain
sufficient funds in the Bank of America for payment of such check  upon  its
presentment for payment.

        c.  On or about 24 April 1981, the applicant did,  at  Edwards  AFB,
California, make and utter to the Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) Open  Mess,
a certain check in words and figures, to wit:  Check #174 in the  amount  of
$36.00, drawn on the Bank of America, for the purpose  of  obtaining  lawful
currency and did thereafter dishonorably fail to maintain  sufficient  funds
in the Bank of America for payment of such check upon  its  presentment  for
payment.

        d.  On or about 17 May 1981, the  applicant  did,  at  Edwards  AFB,
California, make and utter to the Edwards AF Base Exchange, a certain  check
in words and figures, to wit:  Check #221 in the amount of $50.00  drawn  on
Edwards Federal Credit Union for the purpose of  obtaining  lawful  currency
and did thereafter dishonorably fail to maintain  sufficient  funds  in  the
Edwards Federal Credit Union for payment of such check upon its  presentment
for payment.

        e.  On or about 18 May 1981, the  applicant  did,  at  Edwards  AFB,
California, make and utter to Edwards AF Base Exchange, a certain  check  in
words and figures, to wit:  Check #210 in the  amount  of  $50.00  drawn  on
Edwards Federal Credit Union for the purpose of  obtaining  lawful  currency
and did thereafter dishonorably fail to maintain  sufficient  funds  in  the
Edwards Federal Credit Union for payment of such check upon its  presentment
for payment.

The commander further indicated his reason for recommending approval of  the
applicant’s request was he believed the applicant’s discharge from  the  Air
Force was of primary concern.  Her check writing  activities,  both  on  and
off base reflected adversely on the Air Force.  Where  derogatory  data  had
been revealed attempts were made at rehabilitation.  The applicant had  been
adequately counseled by her supervisor, first  sergeant  and  himself.   The
applicant  did  not  respond.   He  did  not  recommend  the  applicant  for
probation and rehabilitation under AFM 39-12, Chapter 4.

On 24 June 1981, the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate recommended  the  applicant
be furnished an under other than honorable conditions discharge  certificate
without probation and rehabilitation.

On 25 June 1981, the commander recommended the  request  for  discharge  for
the good of the service submitted by the applicant, under the provisions  of
AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, Section F, Paragraph 2-78, be approved  and  that  she
be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

On 2 July 1981, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge.

The applicant was discharged on 6 July 1981, in the grade  of  airman  first
class, with an under other  than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge,
under the provisions of AFM 39-12 (Request for Discharge  for  the  Good  of
the Service).  She served one year, seven months  and  three days  of  total
active duty service.

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, was unable to identify with arrest record on  the
basis of information furnished Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial indicating based on the documentation on  file
in the applicant’s master personnel records, the  discharge  was  consistent
with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation.  The discharge  was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.  The applicant did  not  submit  any  evidence  or  identify  any
errors or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the  discharge  processing.   She
provided no facts warranting a change to her character of service.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________





APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 15 April 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response within 30  days.   As  of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

On 26 April 2005, the Board staff  requested  the  applicant  provide  post-
service documentation within 20 days (Exhibit  F).   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  an  error  or  injustice.   The  Board  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;  however,
the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the  Air  Force  and
adopts its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has
not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant has  failed  to
demonstrate the commander exceeded his  authority  or  the  reason  for  the
discharge was inaccurate or unwarranted.  Absent evidence to  the  contrary,
the Board presumes responsible officials applied  appropriate  standards  in
effecting the separation, and the Board does not  find  persuasive  evidence
that pertinent regulations were violated or the applicant was  not  afforded
all the rights to which entitled at the time of  discharge.   Therefore,  we
find  no  compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the   relief   sought.
Notwithstanding the above,  we  note  the  applicant  did  not  provide  any
information pertaining to her activities since leaving the service.  If  she
were to submit any post-service  documentation,  we  would  be  inclined  to
reconsider her appeal as a matter of clemency.

4.    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:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice; the application was denied without  a
personal appearance; and 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-2005-
00296 in Executive Session on 8 June 2005, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
                 Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 January 2005, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Negative FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 April 2005.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 April 2005.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 April 2005, w/atch.




                       MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                       Panel Chair