RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00460

                                        INDEX CODE:  110.00
                                        COUNSEL: None
                                        HEARING DESIRED: No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  19 AUGUST 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her  reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)  code  and  her  under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge be upgraded.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She would be a valuable asset to the  U.S.  Air  Force  based  on  her
maturity and abilities.

In support of her appeal, applicant submitted a statement and  a  copy
of her DD Form 214.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF)  on  25 July  1988
for a period of four years as an airman basic (AB).

On 11 January 1990, the applicant’s commander notified  her  that  she
was recommending her for discharge from the Air Force (AF)  under  the
provisions of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10 for minor  disciplinary
infractions.  The specific reasons for the discharge action were:

      a.    On 20 December 1989, the applicant was verbally  counseled
for failing to report to work on time.

      b.    On 18 December 1989, the applicant was verbally  counseled
for being over an hour late for work.

      c.    On 1 December 1989, the applicant received an  Article  15
for making a false official report on 15 November 1989.

      d.    On 6 September 1989, the applicant received  a  Letter  of
Counseling (LOC) for being over an hour late for work  on  5 September
1989.

      e.    The applicant received an LOC on 9 August 1989 for failing
to follow proper procedures regarding her vehicle checklist.

      f.    On 28 July 1989, the applicant received a LOC for  failure
to submit required forms that she was repeatedly requested to do.

      g.    The applicant received an LOC for failure to follow proper
procedures when operating a government vehicle.

The commander advised the applicant of her  right  to  consult  legal
counsel and that military legal counsel had been  obtained  for  her;
submit statements in her own behalf;  and  that  failure  to  consult
counsel or to submit statements would  constitute  a  waiver  of  her
right to do so.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the  notification  of  discharge
and after consulting with legal counsel submitted  statements  in  her
own behalf.

The  base  legal  office  reviewed  the  case  and  found  it  legally
sufficient to support separation and recommended the applicant receive
an under honorable conditions (general)  discharge  without  probation
and rehabilitation.

On 21 February 1990, the discharge authority approved  the  separation
and directed that the applicant be discharged with an under  honorable
conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

The applicant was separated from the Air Force on 7 March  1990  under
the provisions of  AFR  39-10,  Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen
(misconduct-pattern  of  conduct  prejudicial  to   good   order   and
discipline), with an under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge.
She served 1 year, 7 months and 13 days of active duty service.

On 5 September 1990, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge
Review Board (AFDRB) to have her under honorable conditions  (general)
discharge  upgraded  to  honorable.   The  AFDRB  considered  all  the
evidence of  record  and  concluded  that  applicant’s  discharge  was
consistent with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge  authority;   that   the   applicant   was   provided   full
administrative due process; and  that  no  legal  or  equitable  basis
existed for an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  investigation,
Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the  data  furnished  they
were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the requested relief be denied.  They state  the
applicant has not submitted any evidence nor identified any errors  or
injustices that occurred in the processing of  her  discharge.   Based
upon the documentation in  the  applicant's  file,  they  believe  her
discharge  was  consistent  with  the   procedural   and   substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation.   Also,  the  discharge  was
within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.   Furthermore,
the applicant has not provided any facts to warrant a  change  to  her
discharge or RE code.

AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE recommends the applicant’s request for an upgrade of her RE
code be denied.  They state the  applicant  received  an  RE  code  of
2B—“Involuntarily separated under AFR 39-10, with a general  or  under
other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.   After  review  of
the statement and documents submitted by the applicant and her records
they found no evidence  to  support  the  RE  code  she  received  was
incorrect or unjust.

AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
16 March 2007, for review and response.  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 an injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt its rationale  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain  her  burden  that  she  has  suffered
either an error or an injustice.   The  applicant  is  requesting  her
discharge be upgraded and her RE code  be  changed  to  allow  her  to
reenter  military  service.   Based  on  the  documentation   in   the
applicant's records, it appears that the processing of  the  discharge
and  the  characterization  of  the  discharge  were  appropriate  and
accomplished in accordance with Air Force policy.  In regard to the RE
code, the applicant has not provided any  evidence  showing  that  the
assigned  RE  code  was  in  error  or  contrary  to  the   prevailing
regulation.  It appears that the decision to  separate  the  applicant
was proper based on her situation at the time and the  RE  code  which
was issued at the time of her discharge was proper and  in  compliance
with  the  appropriate  directives  and   accurately   reflected   the
circumstances  of  her  separation.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2007-00460 in Executive Session on 14 June 2007, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member
                       Mr. Michael F. McGhee, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Feb 07, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  FBI Report
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 26 Feb 07.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 7 Mar 07.
   Exhibit F.  SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Mar 07.




                                        JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                        Panel Chair