RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02570
            INDEX CODE:  110.00 and 112.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  20 FEB 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge  be  upgraded  to  an
honorable discharge and her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code be changed.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She desires her discharge upgraded and RE code changed to  reenlist  in  the
service.  She realizes the errors of  her  ways  in  the  childish  behavior
which led to her separation from the Air Force.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 20 November 1990, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of six years.

On 28 February 1997 the applicant was notified of her commander’s intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon her for the following:

        Having knowledge of a lawful order, not to have contact with  Airman
First Class J--- M. G---, Jr., an order which was her duty to obey,  did  at
or near Francis E. Warren Air  Force  Base,  Wyoming,  on  divers  occasions
between on or about 24 January 1997 and on or about 21 February  1997,  fail
to obey the same by wrongfully having contact with Airman First  Class  J---
M. G---, Jr.

        The applicant a married woman, did, at or  near  Francis  E.  Warren
Air Force Base, Wyoming, on divers occasions between on or about  1  January
1997 and on or about 31 January 1997,  wrongfully  have  sexual  intercourse
with Airman First Class J--- M. G---, Jr., a married man not her husband.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived her right to a trial  by
court-martial, submitted a written  presentation  in  her  own  behalf;  and
requested to make an oral presentation.

On 6 March 1997, the  applicant  was  found  guilty  by  her  commander  who
imposed the following punishment:  a reduction in grade from  senior  airman
to airman, with a new date of rank (DOR) of 6 March 1997,  a  forfeiture  of
$100.00 pay per month for two  months  suspended  until  5  September  1997,
after which time it would have been remitted without further action,  unless
sooner vacated.

On 21 March 1997, the applicant was notified of her  commander’s  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon her for  the  following:   The  applicant
having knowledge of a lawful order not to have  contact  with  Airman  First
Class J--- M. G---, Jr., an order which was her duty  to  obey,  did  at  or
near Francis E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming, on or about 17  March  1997,
fail to obey the same by wrongfully having contact with said airman.

After consulting with counsel the applicant waived her right to a  trial  by
court-martial, requested a personal appearance and did not submit a  written
presentation.

The applicant was found guilty by her commander who  imposed  the  following
punishment:  a reduction in grade from airman to airman basic,  with  a  new
DOR of 21 March 1997.

On 26 March 1997, the applicant was notified of her  commander's  intent  to
initiate discharge action against her for  a  pattern  of  misconduct.   The
specific reasons follow:

        a.  She did, at Francis E. Warren Air Force  Base,  Wyoming,  on  or
about 1 January 1996, failed to exercise self-control when she was  arrested
off base for breach of peace.  She received a Letter of Counseling (LOC)  on
8 January 1996.

        b.  She did, at Francis E. Warren Air Force  Base,  Wyoming,  on  or
about 5 January 1996, without authority, leave her post at 1630  to  conduct
personal business at building 833.  She received an LOC on 8 January 1996.

        c.  She did, at Francis E. Warren Air Force  Base,  Wyoming,  on  or
about 29 January 1996, failed to follow the proper procedures, while  posted
as the Priority A Weapons Storage Area Entry Controller, by  exchanging  the
wrong badge, AF Form  1199C,  with  a  person  exiting  the  building.   She
received an LOC on 2 February 1996.

        d.  Article 15, dated 6 March 1997.

        e.  Article 15, dated 21 March 1997.

The commander advised the applicant of her right to consult  legal  counsel,
present her case to an administrative discharge  board;  be  represented  by
legal counsel at a board hearing; submit statements in  her  own  behalf  in
addition to, or in lieu, of a board  hearing,  or  waive  her  rights  after
consulting with counsel.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant offered  a  conditional  waiver
of her rights associated with an  administrative  discharge  board  hearing.
The waiver was  contingent  on  her  receipt  of  no  less  than  a  general
discharge; if the recommendation for discharge was approved.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action  that  he
did not recommend probation and rehabilitation  according  to  AFI  36-3208,
Chapter 7.  By the applicant’s actions, she had shown  an  inability  and/or
an unwillingness to meet her responsibilities as an Air Force  member.   She
had not demonstrated a potential  for  satisfactory  service,  and  he  [the
commander] did not believe her retention on active duty  in  a  probationary
status was consistent with the maintenance of good order and discipline.

On 1 April 1997, the Staff Judge Advocate  indicated  the  applicant’s  case
file included six allegations covering a  14-month  period.   Three  of  the
allegations involve an  adulterous  relationship  with  a  co-worker  and/or
violations of direct orders to avoid contact  with  a  fellow  airman.   The
applicant’s disregard of command authority had resulted in two  Article  15s
and loss of three stripes.  The remaining allegations involved disregard  of
her  duties  and  inappropriate  off-base  conduct.   Her  record  reflected
serious misconduct which had created a significant impact on good order  and
discipline.   The  unit  had   elected   to   deal   with   the   misconduct
administratively in  an  effort  to  remove  her  as  quickly  as  possible.
Although  the  acting  unit  commander  recommended  an  Under  Other   than
Honorable Conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge,  the  commander  had  indicated  a
desire to characterize her service as general.  The  applicant’s  waiver  of
her right to a board  hearing  was  conditional  upon  receiving  a  general
discharge.  They believe  a  general  discharge  was  within  the  range  of
appropriate options, especially given the significant  negative  impact  her
presence  in  the  unit  created.   It  was  recommended   the   applicant’s
conditional waiver  be  accepted  and  it  was  directed  the  applicant  be
discharged without probation and rehabilitation.

The  commander  approved  the   applicant’s   conditional   waiver   of   an
administrative discharge board hearing.

On 3 April 1997, the applicant was discharged in the grade of  airman  basic
with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-3208 (Misconduct).  She served 6 years, 4 months  and  13 days  of
total active military service.

On  16  February  1999,  The  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board   (AFDRB)
considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade her general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge to an honorable discharge.   They  concluded
the  discharge  was  consistent  with   the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements  of  the  discharge  regulation  and  was  within   the   sound
discretion of the discharge authority and that the  applicant  was  provided
full administrative due process.  The Board further concluded there  existed
no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge.

On 27 July 2000, the applicant requested  a  rehearing  of  her  case.   She
indicated she desired a personal appearance.

On 7 December 2003, the applicant’s case was administratively  closed.   The
AFDRB attempted to contact the applicant through the  address  provided  and
phone numbers listed; however, they  were  unable  to  make  contact.   They
indicated she could resubmit her application for reconsideration.

_________________________________________________________________

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  or  reenlistment
eligibility code.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 2 September 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.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the  case;  however,  we  agree
with the  opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  Air  Force  and  adopt  its
rationale as the basis for our decision that the  applicant  has  failed  to
sustain her burden that she has suffered either an error  or  an  injustice.
The applicant is requesting her discharge be upgraded and  her  RE  code  be
changed.  Based on the documentation in the applicant's records, it  appears
the processing of the discharge and the characterization  of  the  discharge
was appropriate and accomplished in accordance with Air  Force  policy.   In
regard to the RE code, the applicant has not provided any  evidence  showing
the assigned RE code is in error or contrary to the  prevailing  regulation.
It appears the decision to separate the applicant was proper  based  on  her
situation at the time and the RE code which was issued at the  time  of  her
discharge was proper and in compliance with the appropriate  directives  and
accurately reflected the circumstances of  her  separation.   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-
02570 in Executive Session on 8 December 2005, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
                 Mr. Gary G. Sauner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 July 2005, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 August 2005.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 September 2005.




                       MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                       Panel Chair