RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01791
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  1 DECEMBER 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her discharge  be  upgraded  to  honorable  and  her  narrative  reason  for
separation be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The narrative reason for separation is not accurate and has  kept  her  from
gainful employment.

In support of her request, applicant provided  copies  of  her      DD  Form
214, driver’s license and social security card.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 Sep 92,  for  a  period  of
four years in the grade of airman basic.

On 28 Nov 00, the squadron commander notified  the  applicant  that  he  was
recommending she be discharged from the Air  Force  for  Homosexual  Conduct
and  for  Misconduct  (Minor  Disciplinary  Infractions).    The   commander
recommended the applicant receive an under  honorable  conditions  (general)
discharge based on the following:

    a.  On 20 Nov 00, applicant received a Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR)  for
failure to  cooperate  with  Security  Forces  personnel  during  a  traffic
checkpoint.

    b.  A Commander Directed  Inquiry  (CDI)  investigation  disclosed  that
applicant committed the following acts and received an LOR on 20 Oct 00.

            1.  The applicant, in the presence of others, made  a  statement
of desire to perform oral sex on women.

            2.  The applicant offered to perform homosexual acts on  another
female member.

            3.  The applicant engaged in unwanted touching  of  hair,  legs,
and other parts of the body of several female residents of her dormitory.

    c.  On 7 May  98,  applicant  received  an  Article  15  for  unlawfully
striking another airman in the face with her hand.  Punishment consisted  of
reduction in grade to airman first class, and  suspended  reduction  to  the
grade of airman.

    d.  On 19 Dec 97, applicant received an LOR for conduct  prejudicial  to
good order and  discipline,  to  wit:   She  ignored  her  First  Sergeant’s
warning not to enter the residence of  her  estranged  husband  without  the
permission of his roommates.

On  1  Dec  00,  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  notification  of
discharge and, after consulting with legal counsel, waived her rights  to  a
hearing before an administrative discharge board and  to  submit  statements
in her own behalf.

The Chief, Military Justice reviewed the case  file  and  found  it  legally
sufficient to support  discharge  and  recommended  the  primary  basis  for
discharge should be Homosexual  Conduct  and  applicant  receive  a  general
discharge without probation and  rehabilitation.   The  discharge  authority
approved the separation and directed the  primary  basis  for  discharge  be
Homosexual Conduct and applicant be  discharged  with  a  general  discharge
without probation and rehabilitation.

On 15 Dec 00, applicant was discharged in the grade of senior  airman.   She
was credited with eight years,  three  months,  and  seven  days  of  active
military service.

On 25 Oct 02, applicant applied to the  Air  Force  Discharge  Review  Board
(AFDRB) requesting her discharge to be upgraded to honorable.  After  review
of the evidence of record, the AFDRB concluded the discharge was  consistent
with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the   discharge
regulation and was within the discretion  of  the  discharge  authority  and
that the applicant  was  provided  full  due  process.   The  Board  further
concluded that there exists no legal  or  equitable  basis  for  upgrade  of
applicant’s discharge to  honorable.   A  copy  of  the  AFDRB  findings  is
attached at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied,  and  states,  in  part,
based on the documentation on file in  the  master  personnel  records,  the
discharge was consistent with the procedural  and  substantive  requirements
of the discharge regulation.  The discharge was  within  the  discretion  of
the discharge authority.

Applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors  or  injustices
that  occurred  in  the  discharge  processing.   She  provided   no   facts
warranting a change to her general discharge.

Under current Department of Defense and Air Force guidelines, the  applicant
would have received a discharge characterization of honorable if  there  was
no indication she attempted, solicited, or committed  a  homosexual  act  by
using force, coercion, or intimidation.  According to the  documentation  on
file in  the  master  personnel  records  this  is  not  the  case  in  this
particular discharge action.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In a two-page letter the applicant states why  she  believes  her  discharge
should be upgraded.  She summarizes the events that took place prior to  her
attempted suicide and transfer to Walter Reed  Army  Medical  Center.   Upon
being released to her supervisor  at       AFB,  she  was  escorted  to  her
acting first sergeant and to the Wing Legal office where she  was  read  her
rights.  The Legal office asked her questions related to  the  conversations
she  had  with  her  co-worker  while  deployed.   She  was  questioned  for
information regarding an investigation of her  co-worker  and  she  did  not
want to be involved.  She did not realize she was actually being  questioned
for information regarding  an  investigation  on  her.   Her  mental  health
issues continued to be problematic; she was assigned  to  the  orderly  room
and worked under the  watchful  eyes  of  her  first  sergeant  and  section
commander.   She  thought  she  was  being  prepared  for  a  mental  health
discharge until her commander notified  her  on  28  Nov  00,  that  he  was
recommending discharge  from  the  Air  Force  for  homosexual  conduct  and
misconduct.  She did not  think  the  legal  office  would  approve  such  a
preposterous request with no evidence.  The  details  of  the  conversations
were embarrassing, and if anyone else heard the conversation it would be  no
doubt as to who said what.  She was extremely stressed  and  depressed,  and
continues to battle depression.  Her  general  discharge  has  been  frowned
upon by the civilian community.

Applicant’s complete response 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.   After  careful  consideration  of  the
available evidence, the discharge appears  to  be  in  compliance  with  the
governing instructions in effect at the time and  we  find  no  evidence  to
indicate  that  the  applicant’s  separation  from   the   Air   Force   was
inappropriate.  We find  no  evidence  of  error  in  this  case  and  after
thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been  submitted  in  support
of  applicant’s  appeal,  we  do  not  believe  she  has  suffered  from  an
injustice.  In addition, the applicant has not  provided  any  documentation
concerning  her  post-service  activities  and  accomplishments  for  us  to
conclude that the characterization of her  service  should  be  upgraded  to
honorable based on  clemency.   Should  applicant  provide  statements  from
community leaders and acquaintances attesting  to  her  good  character  and
reputation, and other evidence of  successful  post-service  rehabilitation,
we would be willing to reconsider this  case  based  on  the  new  evidence.
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  Docket  Number     BC-2007-
01791 in Executive Session on 1 August 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
      Mr. Don H. Kendrick, Member
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member

The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2007-
01791 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 Jun 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jun 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Jul 07.




                                             KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                             Panel Chair