RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  00-01857
            INDEX CODE 126.02/110.02/128.08
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The punishment imposed upon him under  Article  15,  Uniform  Code  of
Military Justice (UCMJ), dated 29 Dec 99 be  set  aside,  his  general
discharge be  upgraded  to  honorable  and  the  narrative  reason  of
misconduct be removed, and he  receive  separation/severance  pay  and
compensation for 2.75 months of pay.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Article 15 was the product of  coercion  and  the  punishment  was
excessive for a first offense. The allegations were not  supported  by
documentary  evidence.  The  note  cards  allegedly   containing   the
confidential testing material were never confiscated  or  placed  into
evidence by the Air Force Office  of  Special  Investigation  (AFOSI).
xxxxx was not a credible witness  due  to  her  being  a  civilian,  a
dependent, and an estranged wife.  Further, she was not  qualified  to
identify actual Weighted Airman  Promotion  System  (WAPS)  Controlled
Test Material questions, answers, or  test  materials.  There  was  no
concrete evidence that a WAPS compromise occurred.

Included in his supporting documents are copies of the AFOSI report as
well as over 40  character  references  obtained  from  chaplains  and
others before the Article 15 was served.

His complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 Jun  90.   During
the period in question, he was the xxxxx for the  39th  Wing  Chaplain
Funds at Incirlik Air Base, Turkey.

On 19 May 98, the applicant tested at Incirlik for SSgt in cycle 98E5.
 He was ultimately selected for promotion to SSgt.   Another  enlisted
member, xxxxx, tested for cycle  98E5  on  4  Jun  98,  and  was  also
selected.

According to the AFOSI Report dated 6 Aug 99, xxxxx  estranged  spouse
provided the AFOSI  with  a  signed  statement  regarding  an  alleged
conspiracy and compromise of test material  by  her  husband  and  the
applicant.  Analysis  of  promotion  testing  history  for  both   the
applicant and xxxxx supported the allegation  that  they  most  likely
collaborated on the 1998 SSgt  Promotion  Fitness  Examination  (PFE).
Prior to the 98E5 cycle, the applicant had taken the PFE  four  times,
averaging 46.66 points. His 98E5 PFE score  was  26.45  points  better
than his average and placed him above average in the top 13.8% of  all
who tested for the 98E5 cycle.  xxxxx had taken the  PFE  three  times
before cycle 98E5, averaging 51.76 points; his 98E5  score  was  37.82
points above his average and placed  him  the  top  0.4%  of  all  who
tested.  After being  advised  of  his  rights,  the  applicant  fully
admitted, in  both  an  interview  and  a  signed  statement,  to  the
compromise of the WAPS test in the cycle in which he was  promoted  to
SSgt.   xxxxx  also  confirmed  he  and  the  applicant  conspired  to
compromise WAPS material.  In addition to the  applicant’s  PFE  study
guide, was a true, certified copy of his WAPS PFE test answer sheet on
which  he  signed  his  name  signifying  his  understanding  of   the
consequences of compromising test information.

On 16 Dec 99, applicant was notified  of  his  commander's  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for violation of Article 92  of
the  UCMJ  for:   Sharing  highlighted  or  marked  testable  material
reflecting suspected test material with xxxxx, engaging in group study
by discussing and sharing highlighted or marked testable material with
xxxxx for the purpose of studying for a PFE, and by training xxxxx  by
emphasizing information known or believed to be on the 98E5 cycle PFE.

On 20 Dec 99, after consulting  with  counsel,  applicant  waived  his
right to  a  trial  by  court-martial,  did  not  request  a  personal
appearance but did submit a written presentation. On 29  Dec  99,  his
commander found him guilty and  imposed  punishment  by  reduction  in
grade to senior airman, with a new date of rank (DOR) of  29  Dec  99,
forfeiture of $716.00 per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty,
and a reprimand.  The applicant did not appeal.

On 26 Jan 00, the Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the 10 Aug  99
through 26 Jan 00 was referred to him  for  failing  to  meet  minimum
standards and ineffective supervisory/leadership skills.  The  overall
rating was “2.”  Earlier performance reports  covering  the  rest  the
applicant’s career are apparently no longer available.

On 3 Nov 00, the applicant was notified of his commander’s  intent  to
recommend involuntary discharge from the Air Force for the  commission
of a serious offense  (misconduct  cited  in  the  Article  15).   The
applicant waived his right to an administrative discharge board  on  3
Feb 00, and provided a statement in mitigation to his commander  on  4
Feb 00.  However, the discharge authority directed  the  applicant  be
separated with a general discharge.

The applicant was discharged on 6 Mar 00 in the grade of senior airman
for misconduct with a general characterization of service and 9 years,
9 months and 6 days of active duty.

On 5 Jul 00, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge  Review
Board (AFDRB) for an honorable discharge and a  different  reason  and
authority for discharge.  On 20 Sep 00, the AFDRB denied his request.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ  AFPC/DPPRS,  asserts
the discharge was  consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation at the time.   The  discharge
action was within the discretion of the discharge  authority  and  the
applicant was provided full administrative due process.   The  records
indicate his military service was properly  reviewed  and  appropriate
action was taken.  He is not entitled to separation  pay  because  his
discharge was for misconduct and he  is  not  eligible  for  severance
because his discharge was not for disability. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB,  referred  the
appeal to DPPPWE, the office of primary responsibility for  Air  Force
testing for their review and conclusions. The  Personnel  Psychologist
who reviewed the request states that in Jun 99 she was involved  in  a
test history analysis for an alleged WAPS test  compromise  for  cycle
98E5 involving the applicant  and  another  individual.   It  was  her
professional opinion that test compromise did occur, both  to  improve
test scores and earn promotion for the two individuals involved.   The
Chief defers to her findings and conclusions, which  are  attached  to
the evaluation, and recommends denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

The Chief, Military  Justice  Division,  AFLSA/JAJM,  indicates  that,
based on Mrs. and xxxx statements, as  well  as  the  applicant’s  own
admissions, the commander had a legally sufficient basis  for  finding
that the applicant had committed the acts alleged. A set aside  should
only be granted when the  evidence  demonstrates  an  error  or  clear
injustice. The evidence presented by the applicant is insufficient  to
mandate the relief requested and does  not  demonstrate  an  equitable
basis for relief. Therefore, denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 19 Jan 01 for review and comment 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 applicant was timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that the Article 15 should  be  set  aside  or  his  general
discharge upgraded. Applicant’s contentions are duly  noted,  as  were
the numerous character references included in his package. However, we
do not find these  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently
persuasive to override the  rationale  presented  by  the  Air  Force.
Based on the statements provided  by  Mrs.  xxxxx  and  her  estranged
husband, as well as the applicant’s own admissions, the commander  had
a legally sufficient basis for finding the applicant had committed the
alleged acts.  Neither the evidence of record nor that provided by the
applicant substantiates an inequity or impropriety which would justify
a change of discharge. Finally, he is not entitled to  separation  pay
because his discharge was for misconduct and he  is  not  eligible  to
receive severance because his discharge was not for a  disability.  We
therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air  Force  and  adopt
the rationale expressed  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having  suffered  either
an error or an injustice. In view of the above and  absent  persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 8 March 2001 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
                 Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Jul 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 2 Nov 00.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 14 Nov 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 15 Dec 00.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 19 Jan 01.




                                   PATRICIA D. VESTAL
                                   Panel Chair