RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02389
            INDEX CODE:  134.00
            COUNSEL: NO

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of  Military
Justice (UCMJ) imposed on 30 Jun 00, be set aside.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Article 15 punishment is legally and factually insufficient.   His  only
official Permanent Change of Station (PCS)  duty  was  to  complete  certain
outprocessing items prior to his Report Not Later Than Date  (RNLTD)  of  10
Jun  00.   He  completed  all  outprocessing  requirements,  to  include   a
bimonthly Anti-Terrorism Briefing by 23 May 00.  For  personal  reasons,  he
scheduled a    10 May 00 final outprocessing appointment with  the  Military
Personnel Flight (MPF) clerk with plans to depart that day on leave  enroute
to his next duty station.  He was unable to make  his  scheduled  9  May  00
Anti-Terrorism briefing, but had no official duty  to  attend  any  specific
briefing.

In support of his request applicant provided a personal  statement;  a  copy
of his AF Form 3070,  Record  of  Nonjudicial  Punishment  Proceedings;  his
request for congressional  inquiry;  a  memorandum  from  his  Area  Defense
Counsel; his Article 15 appeal; various documents associated  with  his  PCS
assignment;  excerpts  from  the  Manual  for  Court-Martial;  AFI   51-202,
Nonjudicial Punishment; his AF 1137, Unfavorable Information  File  Summary;
and  various  other  documents  he  believes   are   associated   with   his
contentions.  Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  12
Jul 95.  He has continually served on active duty, entering his most  recent
enlistment on 12 Aug 98, when he reenlisted for a period of 4 years.   Prior
to the events under review, he was progressively promoted to  the  grade  of
senior airman with an effective date and date of rank of 12 Jul 98.

On 19 May 00, applicant was notified by his section commander of her  intent
to impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of  the  Uniform  Code  of
Military Justice (UCMJ) for failure to  attend  an  appointment.   Applicant
was advised of his rights in this matter.  On 26 May  00,  applicant,  after
consulting counsel, demanded trial by  court-martial.   Shortly  thereafter,
applicant, after consulting his  assigned  counsel,  requested  that  he  be
allowed to accept nonjudicial punishment in lieu of trial by  court-martial.
 On  22  Jun  00,  applicant’s  group  commander,  re-initiated  Article  15
proceedings  against  the  applicant.    On   that   same   date   applicant
acknowledged receipt, accepted Article 15 proceedings,  and,  made  an  oral
and written presentation  to  the  commander.   On  30  Jun  00,  the  group
commander determined that he  committed  the  offense  alleged  and  reduced
applicant to the grade of airman first class.  On 11 Jul 00 and  on  17  Aug
00, applicant submitted appeals  to  his  punishment,  both  of  which  were
denied by the appellate authority.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM,  reviewed  applicant’s  request  and  recommends  denial.   JAJM
states that the applicant had a duty to attend  an  Anti-Terrorism  Briefing
before going PCS.  On 26 Apr 00, he learned of the requirement,  missed  the
9 May 00 briefing and attended the  23 May  00  briefing.   The  applicant’s
arguments were presented to his commander who was in the  best  position  to
determine credibility and resolve the significance of  the  disputed  facts,
there is no evidence that he improperly did so when he determined  that  the
applicant had committed the offense charged.

While  the  applicant  argues  that  he  could  have   changed   his   final
outprocessing date to a later one in order to  attend  the  mandatory  Anti-
Terrorism Briefing is sound,  he  never  requested  this  option  of  anyone
within his command.  Since there was only  one  briefing  he  was  aware  of
prior to his final outprocessing appointment and no attempt to  change  this
appointment was made, that one appointment became  a  mandatory  appointment
(see Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  and  his
counsel on 5 Jan 01 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.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable injustice.  While we do not  find  that  the  evidence
presented is sufficient  to  exonerate  the  applicant  of  any  guilt  with
respect to the offense for which the nonjudicial punishment was imposed,  we
do believe there were mitigating circumstances  present  which  lead  us  to
believe the  punishment  imposed  was  excessively  harsh.   There  is  some
indication that the impetus for the imposition of the  punishment  may  have
rested with issues other than the offense  cited  in  the  Article  15.   In
addition, we are persuaded that the applicant may  not  have  been  provided
effective counsel during the  processing  of  Article  15  proceedings.   In
consideration of all  the  foregoing  factors,  together,  we  believe  some
relief is appropriate in this case.  While we do not  find  removal  of  the
Article 15 from the record fitting, it is our  opinion  that  suspension  of
the punishment would be an appropriate form of relief based on the  evidence
provided.  Accordingly, we do so recommend.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show  that  the  nonjudicial  punishment  under
Article 15, UCMJ, imposed on  him  on  22  June  2000,  which  provided  for
reduction in grade from senior airman (E-4) to  airman  first  class  (E-3),
was suspended until           30  December  2000,  on  which  date,  it  was
remitted without further action.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 7 Mar 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

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

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:





     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Aug 00, w/Atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 15 Dec 00.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 5 Jan 01.




                                  RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                  Panel Chair
AFBCMR 00-02389




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the nonjudicial punishment
under Article 15, UCMJ, imposed on him on 22 June 2000, which provided for
reduction in grade from senior airman (E-4) to airman first class (E-3),
was suspended until 30 December 2000, on which date, it was remitted
without further action.









  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency