RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03483
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  XXXX
		HEARING DESIRED: Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Overall extenuating circumstances of her situation and other problems she was experiencing at the time were not taken into consideration.  Had they been, her discharge would have been honorable.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 24 April 1986.  She was progressively promoted to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C/E-3) with an effective date and a date of rank of 24 February 1987.

On 8 September 1986, the applicant was charged with aggravated assault as, during an argument off base, she stabbed her husband in the arm.  She received an Article 15 on 9 March 1987 that imposed a reduction in grade to Airman (AMN/E-2) and 14 days extra duty as a result of being charged with disorderly conduct and physical confrontation.  On 6 April 1987, she received another Article 15 that imposed reduction in grade to Airman Basic (AB/E-1) for two additional charges of disorderly conduct and disobeying a direct order.

On 15 May 1987, the applicant received notification that she was being recommended for discharge due to Misconduct, and Pattern of Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline.  She received a general discharge on 4 June 1987 under the provisions of AFR   39-10.  The applicant had completed a total of 1 year, 1 month and 11 days of active duty and was serving in the grade of AB at the time of discharge.  She received a reenlistment eligibility (RE) Code of 2B, Misconduct-Pattern, Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline.

The applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AF DRB) on 2 April 1998 for an upgrade of her discharge to honorable.  On 28 July 1998, the DRB considered the applicant’s appeal and denied it.  The DRB concluded that the applicant had been afforded full administrative due process during her discharge and that there existed no legal or equitable basis for upgrading her discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial noting that the applicant’s appeal to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) was denied in July 1998.  DPPRS states that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally DPPRS noted that the applicant had provided no new evidence nor did she present any errors or injustices that occurred during her discharge processing.

AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel admits that the applicant had been ordered to stay away from her husband.  Their contention is that the small community at Tinker AFB made it very difficult for the applicant to avoid her husband.  Additionally, the applicant was trying very hard, even through being abused, to make her marriage work, stating that her deep-seated beliefs about marriage were driving her actions.

Counsel concludes by reiterating their support for the applicant’s appeal and stating that the applicant’s attempts to save her marriage go to the very base of our (American) value system.  

Applicant's response through counsel 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 warranting an upgrade of the characterization of her service.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that the actions taken against her were improper, contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or based on factors other than her own misconduct.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2002-03483 in Executive Session on 23 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, 28 Oct 02. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, 4 Dec 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, 20 Dec 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, XXXX, 16 Jan 03