RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS



IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03501
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
       XXXXXXXXXX      COUNSEL:  NOT INDICATED

      XXXXXXXXXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  24 OCT 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She believes her discharge should have been upgraded to  an  honorable
after twelve months.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered into the Regular Air Force on 19 May 1981, for a
period of four years.

On  20  October  1983,  her  commander  notified  her,  that  he   was
recommending she be discharged, under the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10,
Administrative Separation of Airmen, for misconduct.

The basis for the action was that on 12 August 1983, she was  derelict
in her duty in that she gave a classified  message  to  a  person  not
authorized to receive it;  on 24 June 1983, she was  found  asleep  on
duty; on 10 June 1983, she  was  disrespectful  to  a  noncommissioned
officer; on 11 June 1983, applicant was three hours late reporting  to
duty; on 2 March 1983, she was derelict in her duty in that she failed
to properly check the message traffic allowing a classified message to
be delivered through unclassified  means;  between  17 and  20 January
1983, applicant failed to show for her  semiannual  weight  check;  on
8 December 1982, applicant failed to report to duty  following  a  two
day break; on 2 December 1982, she was derelict in her duty in that


she failed to properly check the message traffic allowing a classified
message to be delivered  through  unclassified  means;  on  3 November
1982, she failed to report for aerobics testing; on 24 September 1982,
she was counseled for substandard duty performance,  a  poor  attitude
toward her duties and being 30 minutes late for duty; on  21 September
1982, she failed to report to duty at the required  time  (22  minutes
late) and on 20 September 1982, she was 45 minutes late for duty.

She acknowledged receipt of the notification of  discharge  and  after
consulting with legal counsel waived her right to submit statements in
her own behalf.

The base legal office reviewed the case and found the case was legally
sufficient to support discharge.

She was discharged on 4 January 1984, under the provisions of AFR  39-
10, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for (misconduct-  pattern  of
minor disciplinary  infractions),  with  a  general  (under  honorable
conditions) discharge.  She served a total 2 years, 7  months  and  16
days of active duty service.

On 9 July 1986, the applicant submitted  an  application  to  the  Air
Force Discharge Review board (AFDRB)  requesting  her  general  (under
honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

The AFDRB considered all the evidence of record and concluded that the
discharge  was  consistent  with  the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion
of  the  discharge  authority  and  that   she   was   provided   full
administrative due process.  The board further  concluded  that  there
exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of the discharge.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, indicated on 18 January 2006, that on the basis of the
data furnished they were unable to  locate  an  arrest  record.   (See
Exhibit E)

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  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,
the applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify  any  errors
or injustices that occurred in the discharge


processing, nor did she provide any facts warranting a change  to  her
character of service.

The DPPRS 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 9
Dec 05, for review and comment 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.  After  careful  consideration
of the available evidence, we found no  indication  that  the  actions
taken to affect applicant’s discharge were improper or contrary to the
provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or that
the actions taken against the applicant were based  on  factors  other
than her own misconduct.  The only other basis upon which  to  upgrade
her discharge would be clemency.  However,  applicant  has  failed  to
provide documentation  pertaining  to  her  post  service  activities.
Should she provide documentary evidence pertaining to her post service
activities, we would be willing to reconsider her application.   Based
on the available evidence of record, we find no basis  upon  which  to
favorably consider this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket  Number  BC-2005-
03501 in Executive Session on 8 February 2006, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
                 Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Nov 05.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 Dec 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Dec 05.
      Exhibit E. FBI Response, dated 18 Jan 06.






      THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
      Chair