RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03367
      INDEX CODE:  110.02
      COUNSEL:  NONE

      HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  7 MARCH 2007

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her narrative reason for separation be corrected  and  her  under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable.
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her   husband’s   “misconduct”   narrative   reason   for   separation   was
inadvertently put on her separation document.

In support of her application, the applicant  submits  copies  of  documents
excerpted  from  her  Veteran’s  Administration  Records.   The  applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 10 March 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  at  the
age of 18 in the grade of airman basic for  a  period  of  6  years.   After
completing basic military training the applicant was enrolled in  the  Fuels
Specialist Course.

On 16 July 1981, she operated a moped in the dorm.  For  this  offense,  she
received a Letter of Counseling (LOC).  On 13 August 1981, she  received  an
LOC for  failing  to  maintain  proper  control  of  her  military  driver’s
license.  On 3 November 1981,  she  received  an  Article  15  for  wrongful
possession of marijuana.  For this offense, she was reduced to the grade  of
airman and sentenced to  21  days  of  correctional  custody.   On  4 and  7
December 1981,  she  received  a  Memo  for  Record  (MFR)  for  failing  to
accomplish Bay Orderly detail tasks and reporting late for duty.

On 16 March 1982 she received an LOC for missing  a  scheduled  appointment.
On 25 March 1982, she received a Letter of  Reprimand  (LOR)  for  reporting
late for duty.  On 13 August 1982 she received an  LOR  for  reporting  late
for duty.  On 14 August 1982, she received an LOC for  not  maintaining  AFR
35-10 standards.

On 14 April 1983, she received an LOR for reporting late for  duty.   On  12
July 1983, she received an Article 15 for failure to go  at  the  prescribed
time.  For this offense, she was reduced to the  grade  of  airman.   On  13
July 1983, she received an LOC for substandard performance.

On 12 August 1983, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant that  he
was recommending the applicant be separated from the  Air  Force  under  the
provisions of AFR 39-10 because of misconduct.  The  applicant  was  advised
of her rights.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the  notification  and
waived her right to submit statements in  her  own  behalf.   The  commander
thereafter initiated a recommendation for the applicant’s separation.

In a legal review of the discharge case  file  dated  25  August  1983,  the
assistant staff judge advocate, assigned  to  the  staff  of  the  discharge
authority, found the file was legally sufficient and  recommended  that  the
applicant  be  separated  from  the  service  with   a   general   discharge
certificate.  The discharge authority approved  the  recommended  separation
and directed the applicant be discharged for the reasons recommended by  her
commander, without the offer of probation and rehabilitation.

On 8 September 1983, the applicant was  discharged  with  a  general  (under
other than honorable conditions) discharge, having served 2 years  5  months
and 29 days on active duty in the Regular Air Force.  An  RE  code  of  “2B”
(separated with less than an honorable discharge) was assigned.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation  (FBI)
provided a copy of an investigative report pertaining to the  former  member
(Identification Record No. 252455CB9) which is at Exhibit F.
________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  stated  that   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.  They also note that the applicant did not  submit  any
new 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.  DPPRS’s evaluation, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
C.
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In her response to the Air Force evaluation  dated  28  November  2005,  the
applicant provided a detailed account  of  the  events  leading  up  to  and
surrounding her discharge (Exhibit E).  In response to the FBI  report,  the
applicant provided reference letters, drawings, pictures, a  police  report,
and her detailed explanation of events (Exhibit G).

________________________________________________________________

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.   We  find  no   impropriety   in   the
characterization of the applicant's discharge.  It appears that  responsible
officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and  we
do 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.  We conclude, therefore, that the  discharge  proceedings
were proper and characterization of the discharge  was  appropriate  to  the
existing  circumstances.   Although  the   applicant   has   provided   some
statements  concerning  her  current   characterization,   we   find   these
statements insufficient to warrant an upgrade of her discharge on the  basis
of clemency.   In  addition,  in  view  of  her  apparent  involvement  with
civilian law enforcement since her separation and  absent  any  evidence  by
the applicant attesting to a successful post-service adjustment, we are  not
inclined to favorably consider  her  request.   Therefore,  the  applicant’s
request is denied.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable 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 April 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

           Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Panel Chair
           Ms. Debra Walker, Member
           Mr. Elwood C Lewis III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2005-03367:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Sep 05 w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 Nov 05.
     Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Nov 05; AFBCMR
                 dated 8 & 27 Dec 05.
     Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 28 Nov 05.
     Exhibit F.  FBI Report.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Jan 06 w/atchs.




                                  MICHAEL J. MAGLIO
                                  Panel Chair