RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02221
                                        INDEX CODE:  110.00
                                        COUNSEL:  NONE
                                        HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  25 JANUARY 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The  Narrative  Reason  for  Separation  (Unsatisfactory   Performance)   be
removed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The  reason  for  separation  "Unsatisfactory  Performance"  is  an   unjust
statement  because  she   was   suffering   from   depression   which   went
unrecognized.  She believes that if her depression would have  been  treated
she would have been an outstanding law enforcement specialist.

In support of her request, she submits a personal statement, a copy  of  her
DD Form 214 and a copy of a US Department of Labor Certification  of  Health
Care Provider.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 2 March 1989, the applicant enlisted in the  Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of 4 years.  She was  progressively
promoted to the grade of airman (E-2), with a date of rank  of  2  September
1989.  She received an Enlisted Performance Report closing 6  November  1989
in which the overall evaluation was 1.

On 21 September 1989, 25 September 1989, 19 September 1989, 7 October  1989,
5 October 1989, 28 October 1989, 31 October 1989 and 3 November  19897,  she
received letters of counseling for failure  to  complete  Volume  2  of  her
Career Development Course, failure to attend a medical appointment,  failure
to report for Security Police Training, failure  to  wear  appropriate  gear
and fabricating an excuse as to why she did not have her gear and for  being
two hours late for work, failure of her Quality Control Evaluation  for  her
duty position of Law Enforcement Gate Guard, failure on three  occasions  to
make the proper response to the exercise duress  word,  failure  to  keep  a
mandatory appointment for a Reading Comprehension Test, failure to meet  the
standards of performance and failure to report  for  a  directed  separation
physical at the base hospital, respectively.

On 28 September  1989,  she  received  a  Letter  of  Admonishment  for  her
unsatisfactory duty performance during the month of September 1989  and  for
failing to pay back money she had borrowed from friends and dorm  occupants.


On 24 October  1989,  she  received  a  second  Quality  Control  Evaluation
failure to her duty position of Law Enforcement Gate Guard.

On  5  December  1989,  the  applicant’s   commander   initiated   discharge
proceedings against her under the provisions  of  AFR  39-10,  paragraph  5-
26a(1), for unsatisfactory performance.  The applicant was notified  of  her
commander’s  recommendation  and  that  an  honorable  discharge  was  being
recommended.  She was advised of her rights  consulted  counsel  and  waived
her right to submit statements in her own behalf.  In a legal review of  the
discharge case file, the staff judge advocate found  it  legally  sufficient
and recommended that she be discharged from the Air Force with  a  honorable
discharge and concurred  with  the  commander  that  the  applicant  not  be
considered for probation and  rehabilitation.   On  15  December  1989,  the
discharge authority directed  that  she  be  discharged  with  an  honorable
discharge.  Subsequently, the applicant was discharged under the  provisions
of  AFR  39-10  (Unsatisfactory  Performance)  and  received  an   Honorable
discharge.  She served 9 months, and 14 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS  states  that  based
upon the documentation in the file, they conclude  that  the  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation and that the applicant did not identify any  errors  or
injustices in the discharge processing.  The  Air  Force  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  on
11 August 2006 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this  date,
this office has received no response.

___________________________________________________________________


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  that  would  warrant  a  change  to  her
narrative reason for separation.  Evidence has  not  been  provided  that
would lead us to believe that  the  applicant’s  discharge  in  1989  was
erroneous or unjust.  Therefore, we have no basis to  conclude  that  the
corresponding reason for  separation  does  not  accurately  reflect  the
circumstances of her separation.  In the absence of evidence to  indicate
that the information contained in her records is erroneous  or  that  her
commander abused  his  discretionary  authority,  we  find  no  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

___________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number BC-2006-02221
in Executive Session on 13 September 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

           Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Panel Chair
           Mr. Gary G. Sauner, Member
           Ms. Teri G. Spoutz, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket  Number  BC-2006-
02221 was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Jul 06, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 2 Aug 06.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Aug 06.




                                  MICHAEL J. MAGLIO
                                  Panel Chair