RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-00848
            INDEX CODE:  126.04
      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of  Military
Justice (UCMJ) imposed on 4 Oct 99, be set aside.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Evidence focusing upon a false accusation of child neglect  that  was  ruled
unsubstantiated  in  court  was  improperly  considered  by   the   imposing
commander and was not made available to himself or his counsel.

In support of his request the applicant has submitted a personal  statement,
several memorandums from his counsel in support of  his  efforts  to  appeal
and set aside the Article 15 action, an excerpt from the Manual for  Courts-
Martial (MCM), his Article 15 written presentation,  eyewitness  statements,
and an AF Form 3070, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings.

His complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on
16 Mar 84.  He has continually served  on  active  duty  entering  his  most
recent enlistment on 2 Oct 95 when he reenlisted for a period of six  years.
 He is currently serving  in  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant,  having  been
promoted to that grade with an effective date and date of rank of 1 Sep 94.

Applicant was notified by his commander on 27  Sep  99  of  the  commander’s
intent to impose punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for being  disrespectful
towards a superior commissioned officer.  The applicant was advised  of  his
rights in the  matter.   After  consulting  counsel,  applicant  waived  his
rights to demand trial by court-martial, accepted  nonjudicial  proceedings,
and  submitted  oral  and  written  statements  to  his  commander.    After
considering the matters presented  by  the  applicant,  on  4  Oct  99,  the
commander determined that the applicant had committed one  or  more  of  the
alleged offenses and imposed punishment on  the  applicant.   The  applicant
received a suspended reduction to the grade of senior airman, forfeiture  of
$250.000 pay per month for two months, and was reprimanded.   The  applicant
acknowledged receipt of the Article 15 on 4  Oct  99.   On  7  Oct  99,  the
applicant submitted an appeal of the Article 15 punishment.   The  appellate
authority denied his appeal on 18 Oct 99.  On 2 Dec 99, applicant  submitted
a request to have the Article 15  punishment  set-aside.   His  request  was
denied on 2 Dec 99.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed applicant's request  and
recommends denial.  JAJM states that  the  imposing  commander's  indication
that  he  would  consider  the  applicant's  prior  disciplinary  file   was
appropriate.  In  his  response  to  the  applicant's  counsel,  applicant's
commander indicated that he would not rely on the  material  concerning  the
disproven  child  abuse.   The  commander's  determination   of   guilt   is
adequately supported by the evidence of record,  including  the  applicant's
own admission.   The  applicant  provided  an  eyewitness  statement,  which
indicated that she did not hear  any  loud,  aggressive,  inappropriate,  or
disrespectful exchanges.  The statement provided clearly indicates that  the
applicant's act of disrespect occurred prior to the eyewitness entering  the
room.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25  Aug
00 for review and response within 30 days.  As of  this  date,  this  office
has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We find no evidence of  error  in
this  case  and  after  thoroughly  reviewing  the  documentation  applicant
submitted in support of his appeal, we do not believe he has  suffered  from
an injustice.  Evidence has not  been  presented  which  would  lead  us  to
believe that the nonjudicial punishment, initiated on 27 Sep 99 and  imposed
on 4 Oct 99 was improper.  In cases of this nature, we are not  inclined  to
disturb the judgments of commanding officers  absent  a  strong  showing  of
abuse of discretionary authority.   We  have  no  such  showing  here.   The
evidence indicates that, during the processing of this  Article  15  action,
the applicant was offered every right to which  he  was  entitled.   He  was
represented by counsel, waived his right to demand trial  by  court-martial,
and submitted written matters for review by the imposing  commander.   After
considering the matters raised by the applicant,  the  commander  determined
that the applicant had committed “one or more of the offenses  alleged”  and
imposed punishment on the applicant.  The applicant  has  not  provided  any
evidence showing that the imposing  commander  or  the  reviewing  authority
abused their discretionary  authority,  that  his  substantial  rights  were
violated during the processing of the Article 15  punishment,  or  that  the
punishment exceeded the maximum authorized by the  UCMJ.   Therefore,  based
on the available evidence  of  record,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to
favorably consider 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 22 Nov 00, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
      Ms. Marcia J. Bachman, Member
      Ms. Margaret A. Zook, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Feb 00, w/Atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 11 May 00.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 25 Aug 00.




                                   TERRY A. YONKERS
                                   Panel Chair