ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00255
		INDEX CODE:  110.00, 112.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her narrative reason for separation (Marginal Performer Assigned to Organizational Unit) and her separation program designator (SPD) code changed.  In addition to her request for reconsideration, she requests her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code (2P) changed.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27 June 1979 in the grade of airman basic for a period of four years.

On 5 December 1980, the applicant was notified of her commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon her for the following:  she did, on or about 4 December 1980, assault an airman by spraying her in the eye with window cleaner.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived her right to a trial by court-martial, desired to make an oral presentation, submitted a written presentation, and did not desire  that it be public.

She was found guilty by her commander who imposed the following punishment:  reduction in grade from airman first class to airman and a forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for two months.  The execution of the punishment for reduction to airman was suspended until 11 June 1981, at which time, unless the suspension was sooner vacated it would be remitted without further action.

The applicant did not appeal the punishment.  The Article 15 was filed in her Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 24 February 1981, the applicant was notified of her commander's intent to initiate discharge action against her for Marginal Performance.  The specific reasons follow:

	a.  She did, on 19 February 1980, at Altus AFB, Oklahoma, failed to report to work on time.

	b.  She did, on 14 April 1980, at Altus AFB, Oklahoma, failed to report back to work, from lunch on time.

	c.  She did, on 29 April 1980, at Altus AFB, Oklahoma, failed to report to work on time.

	d.  She did on 1 August 1980, at Altus AFB, Oklahoma, failed to secure the bench stock area.

	e.  She was on 14 August 1980, at Altus AFB, Oklahoma, disrespectful to her fellow co-workers.

	f.  She did, on 19 September 1980, at Altus AFB, Oklahoma, showed no respect for other people’s property in Building 313.

	g.  She did, on 17 September 1980, at Altus AFB, Oklahoma, lose her meal card for the second time.

	h.  She did, on 3 December 1980, at Altus AFB, Oklahoma, call someone a b----.  Also, she acted in a manner not conducive to the Air Force, while in dorm 313, with her manner of speech, which was in violation of Article 117 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

	i.  Article 15 action dated 4 December 1980.

	j.  She did, on 10 February 1981, at Altus AFB, Oklahoma, made numerous unofficial visits to bench stock, after being told not to.

	k.  She did on 12 February 1981, at Altus AFB, Oklahoma, failed to comply with Air Force regulations, by showing disrespect to an officer.

The commander advised the applicant of her right to consult legal counsel and to submit statements in her own behalf; or waive the above rights after consulting with counsel.

The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that the applicant was counseled on numerous occasions by her superiors, including the first sergeant, with negative results.  Further rehabilitation efforts would not be in the best interest of the Air Force.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted statements in her own behalf.

On 10 March 1981, a legal review was conducted and the Staff Judge Advocate recommended the applicant be honorably discharged.

On 11 March 1981, the convening authority approved the applicant’s discharge.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 13 March 1981, in the grade of airman first class, in accordance with AFR 39-10 (Marginal Performer Assigned to Organizational Unit) and given an RE code of 2P - Separated under AFR 39-10 as marginal performer or to preserve good order and discipline, BMT eliminees discharge due to erroneous enlistment, concealment of civilian convictions, etc.  She completed 1 year, 8 months, and 17 days of total active duty service.

On 30 December 1981, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) denied the applicant’s request to reinstate her on active duty and to change the reason and authority for her discharge.  The Record of Proceedings (ROP) with attachments is at Exhibit E.

On 1 March 2005, the Board staff received the applicant’s request for reconsideration.  The applicant indicated she was separated from the service and given an honorable discharge at the convenience of the Air Force.  The separation code, RE code and narrative reason for separation has followed her for over 20 years and has hindered her opportunity to find employment.  She has been denied employment based on her separation codes.  She further indicated she was young, inexperienced and in a different environment from what she was used to - being at home.  She indicated she was not guilty of any misconduct or crime and it is unfair for these things to be hindering her after 20 years (Exhibit F).

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated they were unable to identify with arrest record on the basis of information furnished (Exhibit G).

On 3 March 2005, the Board staff requested the applicant provide post-service documentation within 20 days (Exhibit H).  The applicant provided a criminal history check from the Dearborn Heights, Michigan, Police Department, dated 1 March 2005, which is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting a change to her narrative reason for separation, separation program designator code, and RE code.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, the majority of the Board is of the opinion that given the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation from the Air Force, the narrative reason for separation and separation codes assigned were proper and in compliance with the appropriate directives.  The applicant has not provided any evidence which would lead us to believe otherwise.  The applicant provided a personal affidavit, dated 10 July 1981, indicating one of the reasons for her application for review of discharge was sexual assault and harassment by fellow and superior Air Force personnel.  The majority of the Board notes the applicant has not provided evidence to support her allegations and if she provided supporting documentation (i.e., eyewitness statements) they would be willing to reconsider her appeal.  The Board advised that she contact the worldwide locator at HQ AFPC (MSIDL), 550 C Street West, Randolph AFB, TX  78150, phone number 210/565-2248.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the majority of the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

2.	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:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-00255 in Executive Session on 5 April 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Chair
	            Member
	            Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application.  voted to grant, but she does not wish to submit a Minority Report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit E.  Record of Proceedings, dated 7 April 1982,
                W/atchs.
	Exhibit F.  DD Form 149, dated 21 December 2004, w/atchs.
	Exhibit G.  Negative FBI Report.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 March 2005, w/atch.
	Exhibit I.  Letter, Dearborn Heights, MI Police Department,
                dated 1 March 2005.

                                   Chair

AFBCMR BC-2005-00255