RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03646
		INDEX CODE:  100.03

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her discharge be upgraded from general (Under Honorable Conditions) to honorable and that her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that would allow her to reenlist.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She received a bad discharge code for her performance during the period of September 1997 through October 1997.  While there is no excuse for her behavior, she was experiencing depression at the time.  She notes she was late for work on many occasions but that she and her supervisor had worked out a flexible work schedule.  For some reason however, her supervisor started writing her up for being late.  While she believes her behavior was wrong, she also notes that her supervisor may have felt threatened by her quick rise through the ranks to technical sergeant (TSgt/E-6).  She questions the legitimacy of receiving a “fair” discharge along with a bad RE code.  She states she did not fight her involuntary discharge or demotion and she did not question her service characterization or RE code because she was timid and afraid of the consequences of a court martial.  She was raised in the military as her father was in the Army.  She loved serving her country and did so for 12 years and 9 months.  She does not want that time to go to waste.  She has paid into the GI Bill and would like to use that as well as return to the service to qualify for a retirement.

In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided several letters of support and recommendation, copies of certain awards and decorations and associated paperwork, copies of Airman Performance Reports for the period 1 February 1990 through 30 October 1997, copies of three distinct DD Forms 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and a copy of her involuntary discharge package.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a former member of the XXXXXX Air National Guard (XXANG) received a letter of reprimand (LOR) on 16 September 1997 for being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 9-15 September 1997 (repeatedly late for duty), and 16 September 1997 for failing to report for duty.  She had been previously counseled for other periods of tardiness on 12 March and 10 April 1997.  Additionally, she was cited by memorandum for the record (MFR) for being late for duty on 18, 19, 24 and 25 September 1997 and was warned by her supervisor of an impending Article 15 should her tardiness continue.  She received LOR’s for tardiness on 5 October 1997 and 11 January 1998 and received an Article 15 on 7 November 1997 (resulting in demotion to Staff Sergeant – E-5) and an Article 15 on 17 April 1998.  She was ordered to submit to a drug test and after providing a sample admitted to her supervisor that she expected the result to be positive as she had smoked marijuana the week before.  The Air Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) conducted an investigation into the matter in conjunction with the judge advocate’s (JA) office.  Several weeks later the test results returned with a negative finding.  On 22 April 1998, her Wing commander notified her that he was recommending she be discharged from the CAANG with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge for a pattern of misconduct.  The notification included a statement to her indicating that her discharge would make her ineligible for further military service.  She was given the opportunity to consult counsel and submit statements.  She was given the opportunity to request a hearing and chose not to do so.  On 23 April 1998 she was demoted to Senior Airman (SRA/E-4) and given 5 days to appeal her punishment.  On 31 May 1998, she was discharged in the grade of SRA with a general (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge after serving a total of 12 years, 8 months and 16 days of combined Reserve and active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPPI recommends denial.  DPPI cites Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, and states an honorable discharge is only justified when the “…quality of the member’s service generally has met USAF standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty.” “General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge is appropriate when…significant negative aspects of conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the member’s military record.”  DPPI states she did not meet the standards required for an honorable discharge.  Further, she was discharged in accordance with all prescribed 

instructions, given the opportunity to appeal and consult counsel.  She waived her rights to counsel and court-martial hearing.

DPPI’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air National Guard evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25 June 2004 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and while we sympathize with her situation at the time and appreciate her candor in accepting responsibility, there was insufficient evidence presented to justify granting the requested relief.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air National Guard office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the requested relief.
_________________________________________________________________

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-2003-03646 in Executive Session on 10 August 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Nov 03, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 9 Jun 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jun 04.