RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-01029
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.02; 126.02; 131.01

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the  period  7 Oct
95 through 6 Oct 96, be declared void and removed  from  her  records;
she be provided supplemental consideration for promotion; and that her
reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C be changed to  allow  her  to
enlist in the Air National Guard.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was in school, doing above and beyond in her job performance,  and
had not had any recent problems due  to  discipline  or  any  negative
actions.  She was notified of the referral EPR and was told that there
was nothing more she could do.  The incident was rushed.

In support of her  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  copy  of  the
response to her Inspector General (IG) complaint, a copy of a list  of
her decorations, and a copy  of  the  contested  report.   Applicant’s
complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 7  Feb  94,
in the grade of E-1.  She was promoted to the grade of E-3,  effective
7 Jun 95.

Applicant's EPR profile follows:

     PERIOD ENDING                            EVALUATION

      6 Oct 95         3
   *  6 Oct 96         3

* Contested report

On  11  Aug  97,  Applicant  was  notified  that  her  commander   was
recommending she be discharged with service characterized  as  general
for minor disciplinary infractions.  Specifically, between on or about
4 May 97 and 31  May  97,  on  divers  occasions,  she  obtained  long
distance telephone services from AT&T in the amount  of  about  $35.31
for which she received an Article 15; on  or  about  26  Jun  97,  she
parked in an undesignated area,  for  which  she  received  a  traffic
ticket and a Letter of Counseling (LOC); between on or about 23 Apr 97
and 29 Apr 97, she obtained long distance telephone services from AT&T
in the amount of about $17.81 for which she received an Article 15; on
or about 7 Jan 97, the  first  sergeant  was  notified  that  she  had
written two checks that were  returned  for  insufficient  funds,  and
while she was TDY to Saudi Arabia, she was counseled several times  on
her conduct for which she received a letter of reprimand (LOR); on  or
about 16 Mar 97, she was derelict in performing her duties  for  which
she received an LOR; on or about 2 Feb 96, she failed  to  go  to  her
appointed place of duty for which she received an LOR; and on or about
5 Aug 95, she did not report for duty in her BDUs  as  instructed  and
was noted by three senior NCO’s and a commander for her “bad attitude”
and lack of response when greeted by a chief master sergeant for which
she received an LOR.  On 14 Aug 97, Applicant acknowledged receipt  of
the notification.  She consulted counsel and submitted statements  for
consideration.  Applicant’s case file was found legally sufficient and
on 19 Aug 97, the commander directed that she be discharged for  minor
disciplinary infractions with a general discharge,  without  probation
and rehabilitation.  She was subsequently discharged on 21 Aug 97 with
a general discharge by reason of misconduct.  She received an RE  code
of 2B and a separation code of HKN.  She had served 3 years, 6  months
and 15 days on active duty.

As a result of the favorable consideration of  her  case  by  the  Air
Force  Discharge  Review  Board  (AFDRB)  on  8  Apr  99,  Applicant’s
discharge was upgraded to honorable; the reason for her separation was
changed to “Secretarial Authority;” her separation code was changed to
JFF; and her RE code was changed to 2C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed  this  application
but made no recommendation because no military justice question was at
issue.   While  the  IG  report  questioned  the  hastiness   of   the
investigation into the applicant’s offenses, it does not question  the
legal sufficiency of either Article 15.  The IG report  indicates  the
illegally charged calls which formed the basis for the second  Article
15 were not known at the time the first Article 15 was  offered.   The
commander was acting within his authority to give the  second  Article
15 for the acts charged even though they arguably fell within the same
time as the acts that gave rise to the first.  Whether or not  the  IG
felt
the applicant was punished twice for the same offense, it  was  within
the discretion of the commander to  impose  such  punishment.   JAJM’s
evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Enlisted  Promotion  and  Military  Testing  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPWB,
recommended denial.  An E-3 is eligible for promotion  to  E-4  at  36
months time in service and 20 months time in grade or  28 months  time
in grade,  whichever  occurs  first.   The  immediate  commander  must
recommend promotion in writing before the airman can assume the grade.
 The applicant was  ineligible  for  promotion  as  a  result  of  the
referral EPR closing 6 Oct 96.  As  a  result  of  the  administrative
discharge action on 11 Aug 97, the applicant was also  ineligible  for
promotion.  She also became ineligible for promotion on 30 Jun 97,  as
a result of Article 15 punishment,  which  consisted  of  a  suspended
reduction until 29 Dec 97.  Assuming the referral EPR  is  voided  and
the second Article 15, which vacated the suspension, is  also  voided,
it is extremely doubtful the commander would have  approved  promotion
to E-4.  Although the applicant met the time in grade requirement on 7
Feb 97, based on her record and the reasons which formed the basis for
her involuntary separation, DPPPAWB does not believe  she  would  have
been approved for promotion to E-4.  Their complete evaluation  is  at
Exhibit D.

The Special Programs and  BCMR  Manager,  AFPC/DPPAES,  reviewed  this
application and indicated that the applicant’s RE code is correct.  RE
code 2C is given to airmen who are  involuntarily  separated  with  an
honorable discharge (Exhibit E).

The BCMR Appeals and SSB  Section,  AFPC/DPPPAB,  recommended  denial.
Air Force policy states an evaluation report is  accurate  as  written
when it becomes a  matter  of  record.   To  effectively  challenge  a
report, it is necessary to hear from all members of the rating  chain,
not only for support  but  also  for  clarification/explanation.   The
applicant did not provide supporting  documents.   The  contested  EPR
states the applicant had verbal and written counseling.  Her  rebuttal
to  the  referral  report  also  mentions  tardiness   and   financial
irresponsibility.  Since her first and only other  report  was  marked
very much like the referral report, with comments alluding to  similar
behaviors, it is evident that her rating chain properly documented her
duty performance and behaviors.  DPPPAB concurred  with  the  opinions
from JAJM, DPPPWB, and DPPAES (Exhibit F).

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
1 Oct 99, for review and response (Exhibit G).  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.   The
applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however,  we  do  not  find
these assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the  rationale
provided by the Air Force offices of  primary  responsibility.   We
noted that  the  IG  appears  to  corroborate  the  possibility  of
impropriety in the issuance of the second Article 15, it was within
the discretion of the commander to impose punishment.  Moreover, it
appears the applicant was afforded all  rights  to  which  she  was
entitled.  After reviewing the  facts  and  circumstances  of  this
case, we find no evidence that the applicant's  substantial  rights
were violated; that  the  information  used  as  a  basis  for  her
separation was erroneous; that the discharge action was an abuse of
discretionary authority;  or  that  the  contested  report  was  an
inaccurate assessment  of  her  performance  during  the  pertinent
rating period.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive 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 18  January  2000,  under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
                 Mr. Gregory W. DenHerder, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Apr 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 28 Jul 99.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 11 Aug 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAES, dated 8 Sep 99.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 16 Sep 99.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 Oct 99.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair