RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02130
                             INDEX CODE:  126.00, 111.02
                                          110.03
                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The punishment imposed upon her under Article 15, Uniform  Code  of
Military Justice (UCMJ), dated 18 December 1997 be set aside.

2.  The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR)  rendered  for  the  period  31
December 1996 through 30 December 1997 be declared void and removed  from
her records.

3.  She be reinstated to the grade of technical  sergeant  (TSgt)  (E-6),
with the original date of rank of 1 July 1992.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  She is being discriminated against and singled out for punishment.

2.  The squadron section commander approved all of  her  leave  projected
before and after her deployment to Saudi Arabia.

3.  Two other members of her work center  were  excused  when  they  were
unable to return the same weekend of 25-27 October 1997 due to  the  snow
storm.

4.  The SCWO Office Instruction (OI) 700-1  was  removed  from  the  work
center some time in early 1998 and  an  updated  OI  does  not  currently
exist.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the  grade
of staff sergeant.

On 25 November 1997, applicant was notified of her commander's intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon  her  for  (1)  being  absent  without
authority from 25-27 October 1997, (2) for dereliction of duty,  and  (3)
for allegedly making a false official statement to SRA D---  K.  A---  by
stating that she was put on quarters on 21 October 1997.

On 12 December 1997, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived  her
right to a trial by court-martial, requested a  personal  appearance  and
submitted a written presentation.

On 18 December 1997, the command found that the applicant  had  committed
the first and second specifications but not the third specification.  The
commander imposed the following punishment: reduction  to  the  grade  of
staff sergeant and 14 days extra duty.

Applicant appealed the punishment, but the  appeal  was  denied  on     6
January 1998.

EPR profile since 1991 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

        14 Jul 91            5
        14 Jul 92            5
         1 Mar 93            4
        30 Dec 93            5
        30 Dec 94            5
        30 Dec 95            4 (downgraded from a 5)
        30 Dec 96            5
       *30 Dec 97            2

*  Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Military  Justice  Division,   AFLSA/JAJM,   reviewed   this
application and states that the applicant  could  have  turned  down  the
Article 15 action and required the Government to prove the charges beyond
a reasonable doubt at a court-martial.  Instead, the applicant  presented
her case to her commander.  The commander, after reviewing the  evidence,
exercised the discretion entrusted to him as a commander  and  determined
that the applicant was guilty of two of the specifications.  However,  he
did not find her guilty of the third specification.  The  commander  also
imposed  punishment  he  believed  was  appropriate  for   the   offenses
committed.

It was the applicant’s responsibility to insure that her leave  form  was
processed prior to departing on leave.  At the time of the  offense,  the
applicant was a TSgt with over 14 years in the  Air  Force.   She  should
have been well aware of the requirement that all Air Force  members  must
have an approved leave form prior to their departure on leave.

In reference to the applicant alleging that two other members of her work
center were excused when they were unable to return the same  weekend  or
25-27 October 1997 due to the snow storm, it is  pointed  out  that  both
individuals were on official leave at the time of the blizzard  and  were
unable to return.  When they returned  their  leave  authorizations  were
adjusted as required.

In reference to the applicant alleging that SCWO OI 700-1 was  no  longer
in effect, it is pointed out that the OI is still in effect regarding the
minimum manning requirements.

They state that it  is  clear  that  the  applicant  disagrees  with  her
commander’s findings.  However, the applicant’s personal  opinion  is  no
substitute  for  sufficient  evidence  of  probable  material  error   or
injustice.   The  record  contains  adequate  proof  that  the  applicant
committed the misconduct giving rise to  the  Article  15  and  that  the
applicant’s commander properly exercised his  authority.   They  conclude
that administrative relief by their office is not appropriate; and  there
are  no  legal  errors  requiring  corrective  action.   Therefore,  they
recommend denial of applicant's request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  AFPC/DPPPWB,  also  reviewed  this
application and states that they defer  to  AFLSA/JAJM’s  recommendation.
However, if the Board voids the Article 15 as requested  or  removes  the
reduction as part of the punishment, the effective date and date of  rank
would revert to the original date of 1 July 1992. If the Board voids  the
Article 15 and the contested EPR report, the applicant will  be  entitled
to supplemental promotion beginning  with  cycle  98E7  provided  she  is
recommened and is otherwise qualified.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed the  application
and states that the applicant has failed to provide  any  information  or
support from the rating chain on the contested report.  In the absence of
information  from  evaluators,  official  substantiation  of   error   or
injustice  from  the  Inspector  General  (IG)  or  Social   Actions   is
appropriate, but not provided in this  case.   Apparently  the  applicant
approached personnel at Social Actions requesting information, but  never
filed an official complaint against anyone in her rating chain.  Since an
official investigation was  not  conducted  and  discrimination  was  not
substantiated, they  conclude  the  report  was  accomplished  in  direct
accordance with applicable regulations.

The  applicant  wrote  a  letter  to  her  congressman  resulting  in   a
congressional inquiry.  The inquiry disclosed that her  claims  regarding
discrimination and unfair treatment by members of her rating  chain  were
unfounded.  Therefore, they concur with AFLSA/JAJM and AFPC/DPPPWB.   The
applicant did not prove the actions taken against her were discriminatory
in  nature  or  that  the  contested  EPR  inaccurately   portrayed   her
performance both on- and off-duty.   Rather,  the  congressional  inquiry
findings prove the EPR properly documented both her outstanding technical
expertise as well as her dereliction of duty and receipt of an Article 15
for violations of Articles 86 and 92 of  the  Uniform  Code  of  Military
Justice  (UCMJ).   They  would  like  to  echo  the   findings   of   the
investigating official.  They state the same supervisor who  she  alleges
discriminated against her, also recommended  her  for  awards  and  other
recognition.  They do not believe the supervisor or anyone  else  in  the
applicant’s rating chain discriminated  against  her,  but  appropriately
responded to her use of poor judgment  during  the  reporting  period  in
question.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 21 December 1998, copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded
to applicant for review and response within 30 days.  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 timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of  probable  error  or  injustice.   After  reviewing  the
evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are
in error  or  that  she  has  been  the  victim  of  an  injustice.   Her
contentions are noted; however, in our  opinion,  the  detailed  comments
provided by the appropriate Air Force offices  adequately  address  those
allegations.  Therefore, we agree with opinions  and  recommendations  of
the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.   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  probable  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 5 October 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
                 Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member
                 Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote)

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Jul 98, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 6 Nov 98.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 20 Nov 98.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 7 Dec 98.
      Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Dec 98.




                             BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                             Panel Chair