RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02637
            INDEX CODE:  126.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  All Article 15 actions be voided; also removal of the UIF.

2.  She be reinstated to E-5 status with original date of  rank  of  1
March 1992.

3.  She be reassigned back into the postal career field,  and  she  be
reassigned her postal Special Duty Identifier as her secondary AFSC.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  She was wronged by her former commander, in that he subjected  her
to Article 15 as punishment for violating policies and rules that were
neither written or presented to her in any form or fashion.

2.  She was told by the postmaster and NCOIC, MSgt G---, of  the  post
office that she could make morale calls from the post office for free.
 She states he gave  her  the  numbers  and  explained  how  to  call,
explaining once she got a dial tone it was a free line.

3.  MSgt G--- finished his tour in November and returned to  his  home
station.  A short time later, TSgt A---  became  the  new  postmaster.
She states later in November a phone bill came for the phone line they
had been using for morale calls.  TSgt A--- states he wasn’t going  to
sign the phone bill because he wasn’t there when the phone calls  were
made.  She was informed by Sergeant First Class (SFC) O---, (an Army E-
7 who handled the phone bills), to mark  the  call  official  and  any
signature was acceptable.  She  contacted  MSgt  G---  and  was  given
permission by him to sign his name  and  SFC  O---  confirmed  it  was
acceptable.  She did as instructed;  marked  the  calls  official  and
signed MSgt G---‘s name.

4.  At no time was she briefed on any procedures for morale  calls  or
calling home.

5.  Sometime in December 1996, a second phone bill arrived at the post
office.  She was again informed by SFC O---  to  mark  all  the  calls
official and sign the bill.

6.  She marked all the  morale  calls  on  the  phone  bill  official,
because she was told by the E7 who handled the phone bills.   She  had
no idea what she was being told to do was illegal.  She states the  if
the Geilenkirchen OSI had never called her in on  21 January 1997  she
would not have known she was  under  investigation  for  misusing  the
phone in Zagreb.  She states that  she  had  been  authorized  by  her
superiors to do everything she  did.   It  was  never  her  intent  to
defraud the government of anything.

In summary, she was mislead into committing her offenses.  She  states
that a senior NCO advised her that  she  was  authorized  to  use  the
government telephone for personal calls.  Another senior  NCO  advised
her to mark her personal telephone calls official because that was the
way the system worked.  In other  words,  her  actions  were  mistakes
based  upon  poor  advice,  not  intentional  misconduct.    Applicant
believes  that  her  commander  unreasonably  ignored  the  mitigating
factors in her case because of racial and/or sexual biases.  She  also
believes the commander and others, discriminated against her in taking
certain personnel actions, such as the referral EPR, denying a request
for training, and denying a request to be named  the  postmaster,  for
the same reasons.

She has thoroughly exhausted all channels of  appeal  in  the  actions
against her, and she is still seeking a positive resolution concerning
the matters at hand.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving in the Regular  Air  in  the  grade  of
senior airman.

On 10 April 1997, applicant received Article 15 punishment based  upon
three specifications:  violation of Article 92, for violating an order
to cease using official telephones for personal  calls;  Article  107,
making a false official statement by annotating the telephone bill  to
reflect her personal calls were official; and Article 134, altering  a
public record  by  altering  the  Government’s  telephone  bill.   The
commander determined that the offenses were substantiated and  imposed
punishment in the form of reduction to the grade of E-4 from E-5,  and
suspended forfeitures of $697.00 pay per month for  two  months.   The
applicant’s appeal to her commander’s commander was denied.  She  also
submitted a request for reconsideration and set aside to the appellate
authority’s commander, who also denied her request.

EPR Profile since 1990 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING                 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

           31 Mar 90                      4
           31 Mar 91                      4
           29 Jul 91                      4
           29 Jul 92                      5
            2 May 93                      4
           19 Apr 94                      4
           19 Dec 94                      4
           22 Feb 96                      4
           16 Apr 97                      2 (Referred)
            7 Jan 98                      5
            7 Jan 99                      5
           29 Jun 99                      5

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Deputy Chief, Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed  the
application and states that with  the  advice  of  both  military  and
civilian legal counsel, the applicant elected to  have  her  commander
adjudicate this matter.  They state 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 chose to present her case to her commander.  The  commander,
after reviewing the evidence, exercised the  discretion  entrusted  to
him by the UCMJ and determined that the applicant was  guilty  of  the
charged offenses.   The  commander  also  imposed  the  punishment  he
believed was appropriate for the offenses committed.  The  commander’s
punishment was  within  the  maximum  punishment  authorized  for  the
offenses.

The circumstances surrounding the applicant’s misconduct, as  well  as
her allegations of  disproportionate  punishment  and  discrimination,
have  been  exhaustively  investigated.    The   Office   of   Special
Investigations (OSI) conducted the  preliminary  investigation  giving
rise to the Article 15  action.   The  Article  15  was  appealed  and
appealed again.  There was a Military Equal Opportunity Investigation,
a Numbered  Air  Force  command-directed  inquiry,  and  an  Inspector
General’s review.  Although this office did not  have  access  to  the
reports of these various investigations, there is no evidence  of  any
improper  actions  taken  by  the  applicant’s  commander,  nor  other
commanders in the chain  of  command  who  acted  on  the  applicant’s
Article 15 appeal and request for set aside.

They state that 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 in reacting  to
the situation.  The punishment imposed by the applicant’s commander is
within the lawful punishments he may impose under the UCMJ.

They conclude  that  administrative  relief  by  this  office  is  not
appropriate.  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.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states  that  she  did
not violate Article 92 because Technical Sergeant (TSgt) A--- did  not
say to stop using the phone at the post office for personal calls.

She states, if Article  107  was  violated,  it  was  done  under  the
direction  of  senior  leadership.   As  to  violating  Article   134,
“unlawfully altering a public record.” She’s not sure if she  violated
this article, she does not believe she did.

She states that violation  of  Articles  92,  107  and  134  were  not
substantiated.  She was  advised  to  do  all  that  she  did  by  her
superiors and was not alone in her actions.  She was  not  aware  that
she was violating articles of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.

Applicant states the only  advice  she  had  from  the  beginning  was
military counsel, the Area Defense Counsel (ADC) from Spangdahelm  Air
Base Germany (two hours away).

Applicant states from the beginning she  accepted  responsibility  for
what she did.  She  told  the  truth  and  only  the  truth  from  the
beginning, and the truth is what was substantiated by  the  OSI.   She
states that if she was wrong then all three were wrong together.   She
doesn’t believe the  Air  Force  is  a  one  mistake  and  you’re  out
institution.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 either in error or that she has been the victim of  an  injustice.
Applicant’s  contentions,  in  our  opinion,  have   been   adequately
addressed by the appropriate Air Force  office.   In  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we are in agreement  with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  In view of the above determination,  we  find  no
basis upon which to recommend favorable action on 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 19 October 1999, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
                 Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
                 Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote)

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Nov 98, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 13 Nov 98.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Dec 98.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 8 Jan 99, w/atchs.




                             RITA S. LOONEY
                             Panel Chair