RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02007
		INDEX CODE:  110.02
			COUNSEL:  	 

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her narrative reason for separation be changed to Secretarial Authority.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She believed someone was trying to poison her and nothing was done about it.

In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal statement, DD Form 214 certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and case documents from the Air Force Discharge Review Board.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 31 May 2000, for a period of four years.  

On 12 August 2003, the applicant was notified by her commander that he was recommending she be discharged from the Air Force for unsatisfactory duty performance.  The basis for the action was on 12 April 2002, she received a Record of Individual Counseling (RIC) for behavior in an unprofessional, rude and disrespectful manner to two co-workers, on 14 June 2002, she received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for failure to progress on the weight management program, on 10 September 2002, she received a LOR for failure to progress on the weight management program, on 25 September 2002,she received counseling to discuss weight management techniques, on 8 October 2002, a memorandum for record was initiated for repeatedly reporting to work late, on 2 December 2002, a memorandum for record was initiated for failure to meet weight standards, failure to use the chain of command and not meeting qualification requirements for position, on 7 April 2003, she received a RIC for failure to maintain qualification commensurate to skill level, on 7 April 2003, she received a LOR for failure to maintain military bearing, on 9 April 2003, she received a LOR for failure to follow chain of command and inappropriate emotional outburst, on 9 July 2003, a memorandum for record was initiated for failure to maintain military bearing, and on 29 July 2003, she received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for dereliction of duty.

She refused to acknowledge her right to consult counsel and elected not to submit statements in her own behalf.  The base legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient.  The discharge authority approved the discharge and directed she be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  She was separated on 21 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, (unsatisfied performance), with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  She received an RE code of 2B “Separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge”.  She served 3 years, 2 months and 21 days total active service.

On 13 September 2003, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (DRB) requesting her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable, change of reason for separation and change of RE code.  The DRB concluded that the positive aspects of the applicant’s duty performance outweighed the negative and that the characterization of the member’s service justified an upgrade to honorable.  The DRB upgraded her discharge to honorable, but denied her request for a change of narrative reason and RE code.  (Exhibit B)

The applicant was initially issued RE code 2B “Separated with a general or under the other than honorable conditions discharge.  Since the DRB changed her discharge to honorable, she was issued an RE code of 2C “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” to coincide with her honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  Based upon the documentation in the master personnel record, 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 new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing.  Her separation was involuntary and she has provided no facts warranting a change to her reenlistment eligibility code or narrative reason for separation.

The DPPRS 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 16 Jul 04, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  We note the action taken by the DRB in upgrading of the applicant’s discharge to honorable.  After reviewing the evidence of record to include applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.  In this respect, we note the circumstances surrounding applicant’s separation and it appears that the narrative reason for her separation was appropriate.  In addition, the change in the RE code to “2C” when her discharge was upgraded also appears to be in accordance with the applicable Air Force instructions.  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-2004-02007 in Executive Session on 14 September 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 18 Apr 04, w/atch.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 Jul 04.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Jul 04.