RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02695
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  28 FEB 2007


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She has been a productive citizen since her discharge.  She has not
been in any trouble with authorities and has continually strived to
improve herself.  At the time of her enlistment, she was  21  years
old and made some poor choices because of her immaturity.   It  was
her first time away  from  home  and  she  relied  heavily  on  her
husband.  She was afraid of being separated from him and  did  some
things in order to be discharged with him.  She  is  not  the  same
person and the things that she did then she  would  never  consider
doing today.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 20 Nov 79, applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  for  a
period of four years in the grade of airman basic (E-1/AB).   Prior
to the events under review she was promoted to the grade of  airman
first class (E-3/A1C) with an effective date and date  of  rank  of
9 Jul 80.

On  26  Mar  81,   the   squadron   section   commander   initiated
administrative discharge action against the applicant  for  apathy,
and defective attitude due to her continued pattern  of  misconduct
and lack of concern to correct her attitude.  The reasons  for  the
proposed actions were:

      On 9 Dec 80, she received an Article 15 for failure to go  at
the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty.  Her punishment
consisted of reduction in grade to airman with  an  effective  date
and date of rank of 9 Dec 80.

      On 19 Feb 81, applicant received a letter of  counseling  for
being late for work.

      On 10 Mar 81, she received  a  letter  of  reprimand  and  an
Article 15 for  failure  to  go  at  the  time  prescribed  to  her
appointed place of duty.  Her punishment consisted of reduction  in
grade to airman basic and restriction to the base for 30 days.

On 31 Mar 81, after consulting with counsel and  being  advised  of
her rights, applicant submitted  requested  the  assistance  of  an
evaluation officer.   On  3  Apr  81,  an  evaluation  officer  was
appointed.  On 6 Apr 81, after  being  advised  by  the  evaluation
officer, the applicant submitted statements in her own behalf.  She
stated that  she  deserved  to  be  discharged  with  an  honorable
discharge certificate.

On 22 Apr  81,  the  squadron  commander  provided  a  supplemental
notification to the applicant advising her of other reasons for her
discharge:

      On 8 Jan 81, a statement was  prepared  indicating  that  the
applicant’s husband stated that she used cocaine.  On 4 Mar  81,  a
military member  related  that  the  applicant  had  been  observed
smoking what he believed to be marijuana.

      On 5 Mar 81, another military member observed  the  applicant
and her husband passing back and forth a cigarette believed  to  be
marijuana.

On 23 Apr 81, applicant submitted a supplemental statement  in  her
behalf.  On 24 Apr 81, the staff judge  advocate,  found  the  case
file legally sustainable  to  support  the  recommended  discharge,
without probation or rehabilitation  (P&R).   On  27  Apr  81,  the
discharge authority approved a general  discharge,  but  found  the
applicant was not a suitable candidate for P&R.

On 30 Apr 81, applicant was  discharged  under  the  provisions  of
AFM 39-12 by reason of Unsuitable - Apathy and Defective  Attitude-
Evaluation Officer, with service characterized  as  general  (under
honorable conditions).  She was credited with 1 year, 5 months, and
11 days of active duty service.

Pursuant  to  the  Board’s   request,   the   Federal   Bureau   of
Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 20 Sep 05, that, on the
basis of data furnished, they are unable to locate an arrest record
(Exhibit E).

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommended applicant’s request be denied.  Based  on
documentation in the file, they found the discharge consistent with
the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation.  Additionally,  the  discharge  was  within  the  sound
discretion of the discharge authority.  They also  noted  applicant
did not submit any evidence or identify any  errors  or  injustices
that occurred in the discharge processing  and  provided  no  other
facts warranting a change to her character of service.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 16 Sep 05 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

On 20 Oct 05, applicant was invited to provide additional  evidence
pertaining to her activities since leaving the service (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 error  or  injustice.   The  discharge
appears to be in compliance with the governing  directives  and  we
find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the Air Force
was inappropriate.  We find no evidence of error in this  case  and
after  thoroughly  reviewing  the  documentation  that   has   been
submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do  not  believe  he
has suffered from an injustice.  In addition, based on her  overall
record of service and the absence of evidence related to her  post-
service activities and accomplishments, we are not  persuaded  that
an upgrade of the characterization of her discharge is warranted on
the basis of clemency.

___________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2005-02695 in Executive Session on 21 December 2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
      Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
      Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Aug 05, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 9 Sep 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Sep 05.
    Exhibit E.  FBI Report, dated 30 Sep 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBMCR, dated 20 Oct 05.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                   Panel Chair