RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02067
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  14 Jan 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was very young and immature while in the service.  Since discharged  she
has received two degrees and has proven  to  be  an  exemplary  citizen  and
desires to reenlist in the service.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant entered active duty on 24 August  1983  in  the  grade  of  airman
basic.

On 22 May 1986, applicant was notified by her commander  of  his  intent  to
recommend that she be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions  of
AFR 39-10 paragraph 5-26c and 5-47b.  The specific reasons for  this  action
were on 3 July 1984, she received a Letter of Reprimand  (LOR)  for  failure
to repair and provided false information to her supervisor and  two  Article
15s dated 20 March 1985 (she did on or about  27  January  1985,  wrongfully
use some quantity of marijuana in the hashish form, a schedule I  controlled
substance.  The punishment imposed consisted of a reduction  in  grade  from
airman first class to airman, restriction to  the  limits  of  Ramstein  Air
Base for 30 days, and order to  perform  extra  duties  for  15  days);  and
23 March 1986 (she did on or about 20 February 1986 she was derelict in  the
performance of her  duties  in  that  she  willfully  failed  to  obey  dorm
visitation hours, as it was her duty  to  do  so.   The  punishment  imposed
consisted of a suspended reduction in  grade  from  airman  first  class  to
airman, forfeiture of $167.00, and seven days  correctional  custody).   She
was advised of her rights in this matter and  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
discharge notification on that same date.  After  consulting  with  counsel,
the applicant submitted statements on her own behalf.   In  a  legal  review
of  the  case  file,  the  staff  judge  advocate  found  the  case  legally
sufficient and recommended that she be discharged.  On  23  June  1986,  the
discharge authority concurred with the  recommendations  and  directed  that
she  be  discharged  with  a  general  discharge,  without   probation   and
rehabilitation.  Applicant was discharged on 25 June  1986.   She  served  2
years, 10 months and 2 days on active duty.

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, states they  were  unable  to  identify  with  an
arrest record on the basis of information furnished - Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states  the  discharge  was  consistent
with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation.  The discharge  was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge
authority and the applicant did not submit  any  evidence  or  identify  any
errors or injustices that occurred in the  discharge  processing.   She  did
not provide any facts warranting a change to her character of service.

The DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and states she was very  young  during
the contested time period.   She  fell  into  the  wrong  crowd  and  exuded
childish and malicious behavior.  She had no idea of  the  ramifications  of
her youthful and ridiculous behavior.  She states since 1986 she  has  lived
an exemplary lifestyle and desires to reenlist.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

On 17 August 2006, the Board staff requested  the  applicant  provide  post-
service documentation within 15 days (Exhibit G).  She provided a  response,
which is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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  warranting  the  applicant’s  general
discharge be upgraded to an honorable  discharge.   We  believe  responsible
officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and  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.  Although the  applicant  did  not  specifically  request
consideration based on clemency, we find insufficient evidence to warrant  a
recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on that basis.  Therefore,  in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice; the application was denied without  a
personal appearance; and 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-2006-
02067 in Executive Session on 21 September 2006,  under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
                 Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jul 06.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Negative Federal Bureau of Investigation Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 20 Jul 06.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 06.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 31 Jul 06.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 17 Aug 06.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 31 Aug 06.




                       MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                       Panel Chair