RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

   IN THE MATTER OF:              DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01946
            INDEX CODE: 110.00, 100.00
  XXXXXXX                         COUNSEL:  NONE

                                   HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 DECEMBER 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

2.  Her separation code be changed from “JHJ” Unsatisfactory performance  to
“KDB” Dependency or Hardship.

3.  Her Reenlistment eligibility code be changed from “2B” Discharged  under
General or other-than-honorable conditions to  either  “1M,”  “1P”  or  “1Q”
Eligible to reenlist.

4.  Her name be changed on her  DD  Form  214,  Certificate  of  Release  or
Discharge from Active Duty

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was adopted at the age of 12.  When she came to the United  States  from
Thailand, she did not speak English.  She  states  she  was  abused  in  her
adoptive home; as a result, she was  placed  in  a  foster  home.   With  no
skills or family, she began studying  English  as  a  second  language  then
decided to join the Air National Guard.  When she entered  on  active  duty,
her English speaking skills were limited.  She states  she  did  not  smoke,
drink and was a religious person; however, her  husband  was  an  alcoholic,
abusive, controlling and interrupted her life  which  eventually  ended  her
Air Force career.  She informed her supervisor, and then  requested  she  be
discharged because of the stress and  pressure  from  her  ex-husband.   Her
supervisor told her a “4” rating on  her  Airman  Performance  Report  (APR)
would help get  her  discharged.   She  states  the  reason  for  separation
recorded on her DD Form 214 is for an un-diagnosed condition.   She  further
states, Conditions that Interfere with Military Service were not  documented
on her DD Form 214, therefore, conflicting with the information  her  former
commander placed on her notification of discharge memorandum.  In  addition,
because of her limited language ability at the time, she did not  understand
the discharge codes and now realizes the  codes  are  incorrect.   She  also
believes she was treated unfairly  in  this  process  because  of  her  race
rather than the personal problems she was experiencing.  Since  leaving  the
military, she has earned a Bachelor’s degree in  International  Affairs  and
has Network Administrator credentials.  In 2005, she joined  the  California
Army National  Guard  and  believes  she  has  earned  a  reputation  as  an
efficient,  trustworthy,  resourceful  person   with   high   standards   of
integrity.

In support of her request, the applicant submits two personal statements,  a
copy of her DD Form 214, a character reference from her acting commander,  a
letter of appreciation from the Adjutant General for her support and aid  to
Hurricane Katrina victims.

The complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 Nov 84.  The applicant  was
discharged in the grade of airman  first  class  on 21 Jul 86  with  service
characterized as a general (under honorable conditions).  On 30 Jun 86,  she
was notified by her commander that he was  recommending  she  be  discharged
from the Air  Force  under  the  provisions  of  AFR  39-10,  Administrative
Separation of Airman for unsatisfactory performance.  The  specific  reasons
for this action were on 12 Jul 85, she received a Letter of  Counseling  for
leaving the office unmanned; on 23 Sep 85, she was counseled for failure  to
properly distribute messages; on 22 Oct 85, she received an overall  “6”  on
her APR; on 12 Dec 85, she was placed on the control roster for  substandard
duty performance; on 10 Apr 84, she received an overall “4” on her  APR;  on
19 May 86, she was again placed on the  control  roster  for  unsatisfactory
duty  performance.   On  30 Jun  86,  she  acknowledged   receipt   of   the
notification, consulted counsel, and elected not  to  submit  statements  on
her own behalf.  In a legal review of her case the base legal  office  found
it legally sufficient and recommended a general discharge.   On  21 Jul  86,
she was discharged from the Air Force for misconduct in the grade of  airman
first class.  She served a total of 1 year, 8 months and 14  days  of  total
active service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the FBI indicated that on the basis on  the
data furnished, they were unable to locate an arrest record.  (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSO states if the name change occurred prior to  her  separation  then
the applicant must submit an original or  certified  copy  of  the  document
used for her name change. Otherwise, if the name change occurred  after  her
separation then her records  properly  reflect  her  name  relative  to  her
period of service.  Accordingly, since she no longer  has  affiliation  with
the Air Force, amendments are not possible since  the  Air  Force  does  not
change records after the fact.  The DPSO complete evaluation is  at  Exhibit
D.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states  the  discharge  was  consistent
with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation.  In addition, the discharge was within the sound  discretion  of
the discharge authority.  She did not submit any new  evidence  or  identify
any errors or injustices that occurred  in  her  discharge  processing.   In
addition, she provided no facts warranting a  change  to  her  character  of
service  or  her  reenlistment  eligibility  code.    The   DPPRS   complete
evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states she was told her upgrade would  be  automatic  and  wonders
why she has to write a response for a records correction.   She  denies  any
knowledge of  the  following:   leaving  the  office  unmanned,  failing  to
properly distribute messages, receiving an overall “8” on her APR and  being
placed on the control roster for substandard duty performance.   As  far  as
the overall “4” APR rating, she recalls asking one  of  her  supervisors  to
help her get out of the service because she  was  miserable.   She  believes
her supervisors were not good supervisors.  Her first supervisor  would  not
help  her  with  her  training  and   professional   development.    Another
supervisor believed rumors  about  her  being  racist  toward  blacks.   She
states her supervisor indicated he  would  make  her  life  miserable.   She
states her job was to delivery documents twice a day  to  the  reprographics
office.  While returning from delivering the documents she  was  reprimanded
for leaving the office unmanned.  She believes if she was fluent in  English
and knew how to fight the reprimand at that time she would  have.   She  now
believes as a result of studying Law and English as a  second  language  she
is better prepared to respond to the allegations  in  1985.   The  applicant
provided documents to support  her  claims  of  being  a  hard  working  and
productive employee.

Her complete response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________
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  with  respect  to  her  requests  for
corrections to her narrative  reason  for  separation,  characterization  of
service and name change on her DD Form 214.  After careful consideration  of
the available evidence, we found no indication that  the  actions  taken  to
affect her discharge were  improper,  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  performance.
 Absent the required documentation showing that her name was  changed  prior
to discharge, that portion of her request  cannot  be  favorable  considered
either.

4.    Nothwithstanding the above,  sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been
presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice with respect  to  her
separation and RE code.  Even though the applicant has provided no  evidence
to  show  her  separation  was  improper  or  not  in  compliance  with  the
appropriate regulations, we believe that under  the  circumstances  of  this
case her RE code should be changed to a waiverable code in order to  provide
the applicant an opportunity to continue  serving  in  the  National  Guard.
Whether or not she is successful will depend on the  needs  of  the  service
and our recommendation in no way guarantees she will be allowed to  continue
serving in the Guard or return to any branch of  service.   Accordingly,  we
recommend her records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show on 21 July 1986, she was separated with  a
reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 3K.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board  considered  BC-2006-01946  in  Executive
Session on 2 November 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


            Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
            Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Member
            Ms. Maureen B. Higgins, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jun 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report, 27 Aug 06
    Exhibit D.  AFPC/DPSO Letter, dated 31 Jul 06.
    Exhibit E.  AFPC/DPPRS Letter, dated 4 Aug 06.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Aug 06.
    Exhibit G.  Applicant Letter, dated 30 Aug 06.



            JAMES W. RUSSELL III
            Panel Chair
                         DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
                                WASHINGTON DC



[pic]

Office of the Assistant Secretary


AFBCMR
1535 Command Drive EE Wing 3rd Floor
Andrews AFB, MD 20762-7002

XXXXXXX

XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX

Dear XXXXXXX

      Reference your application, AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-01946,
submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2603 (Section 1552, 10 USC).

      The Board determined that the military records should be corrected as
set forth in the attached copy of a Memorandum for the Chief of Staff
United States Air Force.  The office responsible for making the correction
will inform you when your records have been changed.

      After correction, the records will be reviewed to determine if you
are entitled to any monetary benefits as a result of the correction of
records.  This determination is made by the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service (DFAS-DE), Denver, Colorado, and involves the assembly and careful
checking of finance records.  It may also be necessary for the DFAS-DE to
communicate directly with you to obtain additional information to ensure
the proper settlement of your claim.  Because of the number and complexity
of claims workload, you should expect some delay.  We assure you, however,
that every effort will be made to conclude this matter at the earliest
practical date.




                       GREGORY E. JOHNSON
                       Chief Examiner
                       Air Force Board for Correction
                       of Military Records


Attachment:
1.  Record of Proceedings
2.  Copy of Directive
3.  Customer Survey

cc:
DFAS-DE
                         DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
                                WASHINGTON DC



[pic]

Office of the Assistant Secretary

BC-2006-01946




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX be corrected to show on 21 July 1986, she was
separated with a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 3K.





  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency