RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00296
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  28 JULY 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She desires her discharge upgraded.  She indicates during her time in the Air Force she was going through a very bad time in her life.  Her husband at that time, was abusive mentally, physically, and sexually.  She further indicates her work performance in the service was not as bad as her record indicates.  She is a responsible, loving, churchgoing person who at that time made wrong decisions and she apologizes for her actions at that time.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 December 1979 in the grade of airman basic.

On 22 June 1981, the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service under paragraph 2-78, AFM 39-12.  She indicated he had been afforded the opportunity of consulting with counsel regarding the advisability of submitting this request for discharge.

On 23 June 1981, the commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that he recommended the applicant’s request for discharge be approved.  The applicant committed the following violations of Article 134, Uniformed Code of Military Justice, with potential court-martial charges which could lead to a punitive discharge.

	  a.  On or about 23 March 1981, the applicant did at Edwards AFB, California, make and utter to the MWF, a certain check in words and figures, to wit:  Check #164 in the amount of $3.85 drawn on the Bank of America, in payment of a debt, and did thereafter dishonorably fail to maintain sufficient funds in the Bank of America for payment of such check upon its presentment for payment.

	  b.  On or about 26 March 1981, the applicant did at Edwards AFB, California, make and utter to the BX Service Station, a certain check in words and figures to wit:  Check #171 in the amount of $20.00, for the purchase of gasoline and did thereafter dishonorably fail to maintain sufficient funds in the Bank of America for payment of such check upon its presentment for payment.

	  c.  On or about 24 April 1981, the applicant did, at Edwards AFB, California, make and utter to the Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) Open Mess, a certain check in words and figures, to wit:  Check #174 in the amount of $36.00, drawn on the Bank of America, for the purpose of obtaining lawful currency and did thereafter dishonorably fail to maintain sufficient funds in the Bank of America for payment of such check upon its presentment for payment.

	  d.  On or about 17 May 1981, the applicant did, at Edwards AFB, California, make and utter to the Edwards AF Base Exchange, a certain check in words and figures, to wit:  Check #221 in the amount of $50.00 drawn on Edwards Federal Credit Union for the purpose of obtaining lawful currency and did thereafter dishonorably fail to maintain sufficient funds in the Edwards Federal Credit Union for payment of such check upon its presentment for payment.

	  e.  On or about 18 May 1981, the applicant did, at Edwards AFB, California, make and utter to Edwards AF Base Exchange, a certain check in words and figures, to wit:  Check #210 in the amount of $50.00 drawn on Edwards Federal Credit Union for the purpose of obtaining lawful currency and did thereafter dishonorably fail to maintain sufficient funds in the Edwards Federal Credit Union for payment of such check upon its presentment for payment.

The commander further indicated his reason for recommending approval of the applicant’s request was he believed the applicant’s discharge from the Air Force was of primary concern.  Her check writing activities, both on and off base reflected adversely on the Air Force.  Where derogatory data had been revealed attempts were made at rehabilitation.  The applicant had been adequately counseled by her supervisor, first sergeant and himself.  The applicant did not respond.  He did not recommend the applicant for probation and rehabilitation under AFM 39-12, Chapter 4.

On 24 June 1981, the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate recommended the applicant be furnished an under other than honorable conditions discharge certificate without probation and rehabilitation.

On 25 June 1981, the commander recommended the request for discharge for the good of the service submitted by the applicant, under the provisions of AFM 39-12, Chapter 2, Section F, Paragraph 2-78, be approved and that she be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

On 2 July 1981, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge.

The applicant was discharged on 6 July 1981, in the grade of airman first class, with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge, under the provisions of AFM 39-12 (Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service).  She served one year, seven months and three days of total active duty service.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, was unable to identify with arrest record on the basis of information furnished Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial indicating based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s 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.  The 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 character of service.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 15 April 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

On 26 April 2005, the Board staff requested the applicant provide post-service documentation within 20 days (Exhibit F).  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 an error or injustice.  The Board took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopts its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate the commander exceeded his authority or the reason for the discharge was inaccurate or unwarranted.  Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and the Board does not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or the applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge.  Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.  Notwithstanding the above, we note the applicant did not provide any information pertaining to her activities since leaving the service.  If she were to submit any post-service documentation, we would be inclined to reconsider her appeal as a matter of clemency.

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 the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2005-00296 in Executive Session on 8 June 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

						, Panel Chair
						, Member
						, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 January 2005, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Negative FBI Report.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 April 2005.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 April 2005.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 April 2005, w/atch.

	
				Panel Chair