RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02284
            INDEX CODE:

            COUNSEL:  XXXX XXX XXX

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The punishment imposed upon her under Article 15, Uniform Code  of
Military Justice (UCMJ), dated 30 December  1997,  be  set  aside  and
removed from her records.

2.  Her original date of rank for senior  airman  (SRA)  be  restored,
with all rights, pay and allowances.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The applicant and her counsel contend that she is innocent of the
alleged offenses.  She claims that she had an outstanding career until
conflicts arose in her  duty  section  with  her  new  female  section
commander.  She and her  counsel  contend  that  she  was  arbitrarily
punished under Article 15, UCMJ, and  arbitrarily  punished  with  the
subsequent vacation action.   Her  counsel  contends  her  commander’s
order, the basis for the Article 15, was not lawful.  Her counsel also
contends that she was not read her rights under Article 31, UCMJ.  She
contends the charges are unjustified and unfair, and believes reprisal
and retaliation for going to the Inspector General occurred.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits several attachments  which
include a letter from her attorney, copies of her EPR and  performance
feedback worksheets, several letters of commendation,  copies  of  the
Article 15 and vacation action, a copy of the complaint under  Article
138, UCMJ, a copy of 9AF/CC’s  response  to  the  Article  138,  UCMJ,
complaint and request  for  a  set  aside,  copies  of  administrative
discharge paperwork, a letter of recommendation from her former  first
sergeant, and copies of her awards and decorations.

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 senior airman (SrA).

On 30 December 1997, applicant was  administered  an  Article  15  for
willfully disobeying a lawful order.  Her punishment  consisted  of  a
reduction from the grade of SrA (E-4) to Airman (E-2), but the portion
of the punishment in excess of reduction to the grade of Airman  First
Class (A1C) (E-3) was suspended until 29 June  1998.   On  27  January
1998, the suspended reduction was vacated,  and  she  was  demoted  to
Airman.  On 4 August 1998, the vacation of the suspended reduction was
set aside, and she was returned to the grade of A1C  with  a  date  of
rank and effective date of          30 December 1997.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Deputy Chief, Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed  the
application and states that the punishment imposed by the  applicant’s
commander was within the legally permissible range of punishment under
Article 15, UCMJ.  The commander was in the best position to determine
credibility issues and to resolve the significance of disputed  facts.
The applicant’s complaints regarding her subsequent vacation action is
moot since 9 AF/CC  set  aside  the  vacation  action.   The  original
Article 15 is supported by the evidence  and  is  legally  sufficient.
Based upon the facts and circumstances  of  this  case,  there  is  no
evidence of an error or injustice which warrants  relief.   Therefore,
they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

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

The  Chief,  Inquiries/BCMR   Section,   AFPC/DPPPWB,   reviewed   the
application and states  that  they  defer  to  the  recommendation  of
AFLSA/JAJM regarding the Article 15.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 12 January 2001, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded
to the 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.

4.    The applicant's case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 7 March 2001, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
                 Mr. E. David Hoard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jun 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 27 Nov 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 12 Dec 00.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Jan 01.




                             RICHARD A. PETERSON
                             Panel Chair