RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02244
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  19 JAN 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to  an
honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was discharged 18 days short of her four year term  due  to  not  having
reported or filed charges against her husband for domestic  violence  -  not
for minor disciplinary infractions.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 May 1986 in the  grade
of airman basic.

On 1 June 1989, a Memo for Record,  indicated  the  applicant  was  verbally
counseled about giving education counselings to  students  who  request  it.
It was noted that all  education  counselings  would  be  performed  by  the
education office counselors  on  staff.   Additionally,  the  applicant  was
verbally counseled on her specific duties.

On  2  June  1989,  the  applicant  received  a  Memo  for  Record,   Verbal
Counseling, indicating she had been verbally counseled  on  other  occasions
concerning her assigned duties as an Education Specialist in the Offutt  AFB
Education Center.  Although office policy  had  been  explained  to  her  at
great lengths, she continually disregarded what she  had  been  briefed  on.
The memo also outlined her specific duties.

On 20 June 1989, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for  the
following:  On 14  June  1989,  she  was  observed  talking  to  someone  at
Goodfellow AFB concerning course verification.  During  this  call  she  was
informed the course was not applicable  to  Community  College  of  the  Air
Force  (CCAF).   She  then  continued  and  notified  the  student  of   the
information she learned.  This in turn led to  another  individual  becoming
involved.  She again called Goodfellow AFB and pursued  question  of  course
applicability.  At no time during this occurrence did she refer this  matter
to a counselor as directed in a letter of counseling,  given  to  her  on  2
June 1989.  After speaking to Goodfellow AFB for the second  time  she  then
referred the matter to a counselor.  Her discussion and briefing to Mr. B---
 inferred, without warrant, another counselor was reluctant  to  assist  the
student.   This  caused  an  unnecessary   counseling   to   be   performed,
embarrassing both the counselor and counselee.  Failing to perform  her  job
as directed  showed  a  severe  lack  of  discipline  and  respect  for  her
supervisor.  Additionally, the alleged complaint  about  the  counselor  was
not appropriately addressed, in  particular  she  neglected  to  follow  her
chain of command.

On 11 July 1989, a Memo for Record,  from  the  Assistant  Chief,  Education
Services  Branch,  indicates  the  applicant  was  counseled  regarding  her
demonstrated inability to follow office rules and policy.

On 11 July 1989, a Memo  for  Record,  from  the  Superintendent,  Education
Services Branch, dated 11 July 1989, indicates “Airman L--- I call  to  your
attention the fact that I have  observed  and  received  several  complaints
about your conversations (subject matter) while at  the  front  counter.   I
expect you to present a professional image while  working  the  counter.   I
will not tolerate mindless chatter,  gossip  and  or  inappropriate  remarks
with customers.  No one needs to know your personal life, what you think  of
a class or instructor.  Provide customer assistance  -  then  I’m  sure  you
will have time to do other associate duties related to counter activities.”

On 4 December 1989, a Memo for  Record  from  the  NCOIC  Student  Services,
indicated at 0645 the applicant notified him of a  problem  she  was  having
with her babysitter being sick and her husband already gone  to  work.   The
NCOIC indicated “this put you in a  difficult  position  because  the  child
care center will not take children as young as yours unless they  are  on  a
full time schedule.”  He further indicated “I want you to be aware that  due
to mission requirements it might not be possible to let you off to  baby-sit
your children at such a short notice again.  It will be  necessary  for  you
to find an alternative babysitter that can take care  of  your  children  at
short notice until your daughter is old enough  to  attend  the  child  care
center.


AF  Form  418,   Selective   Reenlistment/NonCommissioned   Officer   Status
Consideration, dated 12 February 1990 indicates the  applicant’s  supervisor
and commander did not recommend her for reenlistment and  retention  in  the
Air Force.  The commander indicated he  completed  his  responsibilities  as
prescribed by AFR 35-16, Volume I, Chapter 4, and he understood what  impact
this action would have on the  applicant’s  career.   The  applicant’s  duty
performance was below that of her peers; she had ample opportunity  to  meet
standards.  She had been counseled by her superiors  on  numerous  occasions
for failure to meet behavior, conduct, and duty  performance  standards  set
by supervisors.  The applicant did not appeal the commander’s decision.

On 16 April 1990, the applicant was notified of her  commander's  intent  to
initiate discharge action  against  her  for  Unsatisfactory  Performance  -
Unsatisfactory  Duty  Performance  and  Misconduct  -   Minor   Disciplinary
Infractions.  The authority for this action was  AFR  39-10,  paragraphs  5-
26a, 5-46, and section H.  The specific reasons follow:

        On or about 11 December 1989 she was late for work.  She  was  given
a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for this offense.

        On or about 13 December 1989 she was late for work.  She  was  given
a LOC for this offense.

        On or about 8 April 1988, 13 December 1988, and  28  February  1990,
she  received  two  Airman  Performance  Reports  (APRs)  and  an   Enlisted
Performance Report (EPR) which reflected overall ratings  of  8,  7,  and  2
(new system) respectively, indicating a downward trend in her performance.

        On or about 15 March 1990, she  was  late  for  work.   A  Memo  for
Record was accomplished to document this offense.

        On or about 22 March 1990, she was late for  work,  she  received  a
Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and an  Unfavorable  Information  File  (UIF)  was
established for this offense.

The commander indicated in his  recommendation  for  discharge  action  that
before recommending the discharge, he [the commander], the  first  sergeant,
and  the  applicant’s  supervisors  had  verbally  counseled  the  applicant
concerning  exactly  what  the  Air  Force,  her  squadron,   and   everyone
concerned, expected of her as an active duty member  in  the  United  States
Air Force.  The applicant had been given every opportunity  to  improve  her
behavior and to show that she was able to meet  Air  Force  standards.   The
discharge was required in the best interest of  the  Quality  Force  Program
and the Air Force.

The commander advised the applicant of her right to  consult  legal  counsel
and submit statements in her own behalf.  Her failure  to  do  either  would
constitute a waiver of her right to do so.

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

On 23 April 1990, the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  found  the  discharge  action
legally sufficient and recommended the applicant be discharged with  service
characterized as general (under honorable conditions) without probation  and
rehabilitation.  AFR 39-10, section H, permits  Joint  Processing  in  cases
where more than one reason for discharge  was  recommended.   Based  on  the
evidence of record, this case was justifiably processed using two bases  for
the action.  He found this action  legally  sufficient  and  in  substantial
procedural compliance with the provisions of AFR 39-10.   Either  allegation
would alone support discharge.  Debarment was  often  used  to  ensure  that
good order and discipline was maintained at Air  Force  installations.   Due
to the fact that the  applicant  had  not  been  involved  in  incidents  of
serious misconduct, debarment of the applicant was not recommended.

The discharge authority approved the applicant’s  general  (under  honorable
conditions) discharge on 24 April 1990,  under  AFR  39-10,  paragraph  5-46
(Misconduct - Minor Disciplinary Infractions).

The applicant was discharged on 25  April  1990,  in  the  grade  of  senior
airman with a general (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge,  under  the
provisions of  AFR  39-10,  (Misconduct  -  Pattern  of  Minor  Disciplinary
Infractions).  She served 3 years, 11 months, and 12 days  of  total  active
military service.

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, was unable to identify with an 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 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 5 August 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 12 August 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  warranting  the  applicant’s  general
(under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to   an   honorable
discharge.  The Board believes  responsible  officials  applied  appropriate
standards  in  effecting  the  separation,  and  the  Board  does  not  find
persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were  violated  or  that  the
applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the  time  of
discharge.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,  we  find
no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or 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-
02244 in Executive Session on 20 October 2005, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
                 Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 July 2005, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Negative FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 August 2005.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 August 2005.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 August 2005, w/atch.




                       KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                       Panel Chair