RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01745
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  30 NOVEMBER 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable and the narrative reason be changed to reflect high year  of
tenure.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Mitigating  financial  circumstances  were  ignored,  and   the   main
objective of her former commander was  humiliation,  devastation,  and
excessive punishment.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal  statement  and
newspaper article.  Applicant's complete submission, with attachments,
is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular  Air  Force
on 15 September 1986 in the grade of airman first class for  a  period
of four years.   She  continued  to  reenlist  and  entered  her  last
enlistment in the grade of sergeant on 11 May 1998 for a period of six
years.  She received 17 Airman Performance Reports  (APRs),  in  which
the overall evaluations were “9,” “8,” “9,” “3,” “4,” “5,”  “5,”  “5,”
“5,” “5,” “4,” “4,” “3,” “3,” “4,” “2,”  and  “2.”   During  her  last
extended enlistment, she was promoted to the grade of staff  sergeant,
effective 1 April 1993.

On 24 October  1997,  prior  to  entering  her  last  enlistment,  she
received an Article 15 for the following reason:  On or about 8 August
1997, she violated a lawful general regulation,  to  wit:   Air  Force
Instruction 65-104, dated 1 May 1996, in that she willfully failed  to
refrain from utilizing a government card for unofficial cash advances,
and purchases as it was her  duty  to  do.   Punishment  consisted  of
reduction to senior airman (suspended until  24  April  1998),  and  a
reprimand.

Applicant’s commander notified her on 8  February  2001  that  he  was
recommending discharge from  the  Air  Force  for  minor  disciplinary
infractions.  The commander  was  recommending  applicant  receive  an
under other than honorable discharge based on the following:  (1) On 4
September 1998, she received an Article  15  for  disorderly  conduct.
Punishment consisted of  reduction  to  the  grade  of  senior  airman
suspended until 3 March 1999, after which time it  would  be  remitted
without further action, unless sooner vacated.  (2) On  28  May  1999,
she received a  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR)  for  being  indebted  to
numerous businesses.  (3) On 4 February 2000, she received an  Article
15 for failure to obey  a  lawful  general  regulation  by  using  her
supervisory position to persuade her subordinate to give  her  a  loan
and by accepting a loan from an individual junior in rank.  Punishment
consisted of reduction to grade the of senior  airman,  forfeiture  of
$778 pay per month for 2 months, suspended until 1 August 2000,  after
which time it would be remitted without further action  unless  sooner
vacated.  (4) On 6 April 2000, she received an LOR for failure  to  go
at the time prescribed to  the  Health  and  Wellness  Center  for  an
initial dietary counseling.  (5) On 22 December 2000, she received  an
Article 15 for being indebted to Bank of America and  failing  to  pay
her debt.  Punishment consisted of reduction to the  grade  of  airman
first class.  Both portions of the punishment were suspended.

Applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification  of  discharge  and
did not waive  her  rights  to  a  hearing  before  an  administrative
discharge board or military counsel.  She submitted statements in  her
own behalf.

On 19 April  2001,  applicant  was  notified  that  an  administrative
discharge board would be convened to determine whether she  should  be
discharged from the United States Air Force under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-3208 for minor disciplinary  infractions.   The  administrative
discharge board convened on 26 April 2001  and  recommended  applicant
receive an under other than  honorable  conditions  discharge  without
probation and rehabilitation.

The base legal office  reviewed  the  administrative  discharge  board
action and found  it  legally  sufficient  and  recommended  applicant
receive an under other than  honorable  conditions  discharge  without
probation and rehabilitation.

The discharge authority approved  the  separation  and  directed  that
applicant be discharged with an under other than honorable  conditions
discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

The applicant was separated from the Air Force on 6  June  2001  under
the provisions of AFI 36-3208,  Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen
(misconduct), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.
 In total, she served 14 years, 7 months and 22 days on active duty.

The Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)  denied  applicant’s
request for upgrade of discharge to honorable and change of reason for
discharge on 10 January 2002 (Exhibit B).

On 27 June 2002, the Air Force Discharge Review Board again considered
all the evidence of record and concluded that the overall  quality  of
applicant’s  service  was  more  accurately  reflected  by  an   under
honorable conditions (general) discharge.  Corrective action was taken
to change applicant’s DD  Form  214  to  reflect  an  under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge (Exhibit B).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS states based on the documentation on  file  in  the  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.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.   A  complete
copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant provided a statement commenting on the advisory opinion.  In
summary she states that she is currently employed by  a  company  that
manufactures engine parts for airplanes and helicopters.  Nothing  can
change the humiliation, mental stress,  and  sense  of  loss  she  has
suffered.  She is concentrating on her  future  and  the  sky  is  the
limit.  Based on the facts that she has presented  and  the  questions
she has raised, she feels an honorable discharge  with  high  year  of
tenure as the narrative reason is not only deserved, but justified.

Applicant's complete response, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit
E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   After  reviewing  the  previous
documentation and noting the additional  documentation  submitted,  we
are not convinced  that  the  applicant’s  request  for  an  honorable
discharge should be granted.  As stated, the discharge was  consistent
with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation  and  the  discharge  was  within  the  discretion  of  the
discharge authority.  We have considered applicant’s  overall  quality
of service, the events which precipitation the discharge and available
evidence related to post-service activities and  accomplishments.   We
note that the applicant did not submit any evidence  or  identify  any
errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge  processing.   The
applicant believes her  discharge  and  service  characterization  are
harsh.  We disagree.  In our opinion, based on  the  circumstances  of
this case and the evidence provided, we do not believe relief  greater
than that afforded to the applicant by the  AFDRB  is  warranted.   We
therefore agree with the opinion and recommendation of the  office  of
the Air Force and adopt its rationale as the basis for the  conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error  or  injustice.
Accordingly, the applicant’s request is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 20 September 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                       Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
                       Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2005-01745 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 May 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, undated.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 05.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, undated.



                             B. J. WHITE-OLSON
                             Panel Chair