RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01050
		INDEX NUMBER:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her narrative reason for separation be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Item 28, “Narrative Reason for Separation” on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, should have been left blank.  Her Article 15, extra duty, and demotion already covered the punishments for remarks under Item 28.  This is an injustice to her and several perspective employers have pointed it out to her.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 8 Sep 86, for a period of four years in the grade of airman basic.  She served on continuous active duty until her administrative discharge on 24 Oct 91.  Her highest grade held was sergeant.  She was reduced to the grade of airman first class, effective 17 Sep 91, as a result of punishment imposed under Article 15, UCMJ.

On 3 Oct 91, the squadron commander notified the applicant that he was recommending she be discharged from the Air Force for minor disciplinary infractions.  The commander cited the following reasons for the proposed discharge action:  (1) Record of individual counseling on 16 Oct 87, for failure to go on or about 8 Oct 87; (2) Record of individual counseling on 4 Feb 88, for failure to go on or about 2 Feb 88; (3) Letter of reprimand (LOR) on 29 Mar 88, for failure to go on or about 29 Mar 88; (4) Article 15 on 22 May 89, for failure to obey a lawful order on 8 May 89 to report to the hospital for urinalysis testing; punishment imposed consisted of a suspended reduction to the grade of airman, and suspended forfeiture of $75.00 pay per month for two months; (5) Record of individual counseling on 19 Jun 89, for failure to go on or about 19 Jun 89; (6) Record of individual counseling on 24 Jun 89, for failure to go on or about 24 Jun 89; (7) LOR and unfavorable information file (UIF) on  3 May 90, for making a false official statement on 28 Apr 90; (8) LOR on 3 Sep 91, for failure to go on or about 12 and 19 Aug 91; and (9) Article 15 on 17 Sep 91, for failure to go on or about 4 Sep 91; punishment imposed consisted of reduction to the grade of airman first class, suspended forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for two months, and restriction to the base for 30 days.

On 3 Oct 91, applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification, that she had consulted with military counsel and was submitting statements in her own behalf.  The wing staff judge advocate found the case file legally sufficient to support discharge.  The discharge authority approved the separation and directed a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

On 24 Oct 91, applicant was discharged in the grade of airman first class, under the provisions of AFR 39-10, by reason of misconduct – pattern of minor disciplinary infractions, with service characterized as under honorable conditions (general).  She was credited with 5 years, 1 month, and 17 days of active military service. 

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS reviewed this application and recommended denial.  They stated, in part, that based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the applicant provided no facts warranting a change to the narrative reason for separation.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23 Apr 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.  (Exhibit D)

___________________________________________________________________

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; however, we are not persuaded that the narrative reason for separation should be changed.  The discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing regulation and we find no evidence to indicate that applicant’s separation from the Air Force was inappropriate or that it was based on any factors other than her own misconduct.  The reason for separation is supported by the evidence of record; i.e., misconduct, as evidenced by the applicant’s failure to obey a lawful order, repeated incidents of failure to go, and making a false official statement.  We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force 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, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider her request to change or delete the narrative reason for her discharge.

___________________________________________________________________

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‑2004-01050 in Executive Session on 24 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Mar 04, w/atchs
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Apr 04
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Apr 04