RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03939
                                             INDEX CODE:  100.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXX               COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXXXX                          HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  30 June 2007


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her discharge be upgraded to honorable, her  Reenlistment  Eligibility  (RE)
Code be upgraded to 1J, and the  narrative  reason  for  her  discharge  and
discharge code be changed to reflect her voluntary discharge.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) did not consider  some  of  the
documents she submitted because they were not part of  an  official  record;
however, since the documents were used against her  they  should  have  been
considered.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits her personal statement  and  the
AFDRB Hearing Record, with attachments.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  13
December 1995 for a period  of  four  years.   On  31 March  1998,  she  was
notified of the commander’s intent  to  initiate  her  discharge  for  minor
disciplinary infractions as evidenced by the Article 15 for  dereliction  of
duty, 3 Letters of Counseling (LOCs) for  failures  to  go  and  failing  to
follow orders, and 6 Letters of Reprimand (LORs) for being negligent in  the
performance of her duties, making  a  false  statement,  and  unsatisfactory
progress in Phase I of the Weight Management Program (WMP).   The  commander
also indicated she was recommending that her  service  be  characterized  as
general.  On 10 April 1998, she was discharged under the provisions  of  AFI
36-3208  (Misconduct),  with  service  characterized   as   general   (under
honorable conditions),  and  issued  an  RE  code  of  “2B  -  Involuntarily
separated with a general discharge.”  She completed 2 years, 3  months,  and
28 days of active service.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied, and states, in  part,  that
based on the documentation in the applicant’s master personnel records,  the
discharge was consistent with the procedural  and  substantive  requirements
of the discharge regulation.  Further, the  applicant  did  not  submit  any
evidence  or  identify  any  errors  or  injustices  that  occurred  in  the
processing of her discharge.

The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Although she is unable to prove the events did not occur, it also cannot  be
proven the events did occur.  Regardless, the  situations  could  have  been
handled  differently.   She  should  not  have  been  given  more  and  more
responsibility if he was  having  difficulty.   In  addition,  her  mistakes
should have been pointed out immediately so  that  improvements  could  have
been made and not allowed to accumulate.   If  management  truly  wanted  to
help her, they could have utilized things  such  as  verbal  counseling  and
monthly performance feedback.  They could also have  moved  to  a  different
department to fix the problem.

In further support of the appeal, applicant submits her personal account  of
the events leading up to her discharge.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

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.  In 1989, the applicant received a  general
discharge   for   misconduct.    Specifically,   for   minor    disciplinary
infractions.  The AFDRB found insufficient basis on  which  to  upgrade  her
discharge to honorable, change the reason and authority  of  her  discharge,
or to upgrade her RE code.   After  thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence  of
record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we find no basis to  overturn
the decision of the AFDRB.  The discharge appears to be in  compliance  with
the governing Air Force Instruction and we  find  no  evidence  to  indicate
that her separation from the Air  Force  was  inappropriate.   The  evidence
indicates she was offered every right to which entitled.  Further,  evidence
has not been presented which would  lead  us  to  believe  the  non-judicial
punishment she received was improper.  In cases of this nature, we  are  not
inclined to disturb the judgments of commanding  officers  absent  a  strong
showing of abuse of discretionary authority.  We have no such showing  here.
 In addition, she  has  not  provided  any  evidence  showing  the  imposing
commander or the reviewing authority abused their  discretionary  authority,
that her substantial rights were  violated  during  the  processing  of  the
Article  15  punishments,  or  that  the  punishment  exceeded  the  maximum
authorized by the Uniformed Code of Military  Justice.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

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-2005-03939
in Executive Session on 27 April 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member
                       Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Dec 05.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Jan 06.


    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jan 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atch.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair