RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01285
		INDEX CODE:  110.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 OCTOBER 2008

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason for her discharge be changed.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She initiated the discharge action and inaccurate mischaracterizations and allegations were used against her.

In support of her appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement, a Report of Investigation, a copy of her DD Form 214, and an Application for Admission to the Bar of Maryland.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 11 January 1989 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years.

The applicant’s commander notified her that he was recommending her for discharge for unsatisfactory duty performance.  The specific reasons for the discharge action were:

	a.	On 11 April 1989, the applicant was counseled regarding her lackluster attitude during class.

	b.	On 1 May 1989, the applicant was counseled and placed on remedial instruction and probation for failing her Module 3 test. 

	c.	On 8 June 1989, the applicant was interviewed for failing to meet the requirements of the Reading/Writing and Listening Comprehension portion on Proficiency Aptitude Test 1.

	d.	On 9 June 1989, the applicant made comments indicating that she wanted out of the AF and would do just about anything to get out.  She also wrote a poem saying keeping her in the AF could possibly or would be a danger to other people.  She also stated if she were put in a job fixing airplanes, she might not tighten a bolt enough, and could not be responsible for people’s lives.  On another occasion she stated she would tell the AF that she was a communist and studying communism.

	e.	On 15 June 1989, the applicant was dropped from her class. 

	f.	On 15 June 1989, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation.  The evaluation determined the applicant demonstrated developmental/personality characteristics that contributed to her difficulty adjusting to the demands of a military environment.

	g.	On 14 July 1989, the applicant received an Article 15 for being Absent Without Leave (AWOL) from 5 July 1989 to 8 July 1989.

The commander advised the applicant of her right to consult legal counsel, that military legal counsel had been obtained for her, of her right to submit statements in her own behalf, and that failure to consult counsel or to submit statements would constitute a waiver of her right to do so.

On 3 August 1989, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge and after consulting with legal counsel submitted a statement in her own behalf.

On 16 August 1989, a legal review was conducted in which the staff judge advocate recommended the applicant receive an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without probation and rehabilitation.  

On 28 February 1983, the discharge authority approved the separation and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation.

The applicant was separated for unsatisfactory performance from the AF on 6 September 1989 in the grade of airman with a general discharge.  She was credited with 7 months and 22 days of active service.

___________________________________________________________________

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 an injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of proof that she has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Based on the documentation in the applicant's records, it appears that the processing of the discharge was appropriate and accomplished in accordance with the applicable Air Force regulation.  The applicant has not shown the characterization of her service was contrary to the provisions of the applicable regulation.  Nor has she shown the nature of the discharge was unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offenses committed.  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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-01285 in Executive Session on 12 September 2007 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
				XXXXXXXXXX, Member
				XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Apr 07, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Extract AFR 39-10.

							XXXXXXXXXX
							Panel Chair