RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02613
            INDEX CODE:  134.00; 131.00;
                           111.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Board  set  aside  the  Article  15  punishment  imposed  on  her  on
3 February 1997; all items be purged  from  her  Unfavorable  Information
File (UIF), including but not limited to any  Weight  Management  Program
(WMP) codes; the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing  30  July  1997
(sic), be rewritten to reflect no negative actions and  bullets,  and  to
include her coordination of a retirement ceremony; she be  reinstated  in
the Air Force not later than 1 January 2001; she receive  all  back  pay,
back time, and return of a $2,000 fine; she be  immediately  assigned  to
Squadron Officer School (SOS) in residence; and that she be  promoted  to
the grade of major upon graduation from SOS.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She wanted to leave her Command and Control position and  return  to  her
primary career field.  There were discussions to keep her on the  console
through the upcoming ORI, which she did not participate in.  Her requests
for a PCS, PCA and even her initial  request  to  separate  were  denied.
Regarding the process, if everything was done just to  keep  her  on  the
console, she understands and desires no repercussions to the  careers  of
those in her line of supervision.  She suspects this is the case  because
of the constant resistance to her leaving the Command Center.

The  Article  15  punishment,  as  a  result  of  an  enlisted   member’s
accusations of her pursuit of him, was fraudulent.  He pursued her.

She explains  each  attachment,  requests  immediate  correction  to  her
records and immediate return to active duty.

The applicant’s complete submission, which includes Attachments A through
T, a Remedial Training policy letter, and a character  statement,  is  at
Exhibit A.

Applicant’s Attachment F is an OPR closing 11 February 1996, not  an  OPR
dated 7 November 1995; Attachment J is a message dated November 1995, not
April 1996; Attachment K, Letter of Counseling, is dated  26  June  1996,
not 26 April 1996; Attachment Q, No Contact Order, is dated  18  December
1996, not 12 December 1996; and Attachment T is missing but  is  included
at Exhibit B.   Also  included  at  Exhibit  A,  but  not  listed  as  an
attachment, is a roster, dated 26  June  1996,  and  a  policy  statement
concerning Remedial Training, dated 25 June 1996.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was appointed a  second  lieutenant,  Reserve  of  the  Air
Force, on 16 May 1992, and was voluntarily  ordered  to  extended  active
duty on 15 October 1992.  She was  promoted  to  the  grade  of  captain,
effective 30 July 1996.

On 15 January 1997, the applicant was notified of her commander’s  intent
to recommend that nonjudicial  punishment  under  Article  15,  UCMJ,  be
imposed on her for attempting to fraternize with an  enlisted  member  on
terms of military equality,  in  violation  of  Article  80,  UCMJ.   The
conduct underlying the specification was her showing up uninvited looking
for the member; following him from a bar to his residence;  entering  his
bedroom uninvited, with bags in hand, intending to renew a  prior  sexual
relationship with the member; telephoning him at his workplace and at his
parents’ residence;  telephoning  his  active  duty  supervisor  when  he
refused to talk with her on the telephone; and sending him  inappropriate
personal  cards,  letters,  and  gifts,  notwithstanding  his  repeatedly
telling her to leave him alone.  The applicant was advised of her  rights
in this matter.  After consulting counsel, the applicant waived her right
to demand trial by court-martial, accepted Article 15 proceedings, waived
a  personal  appearance  and  provided  a  written  presentation  to  the
commander.  On 3 February 1997, the Numbered Air  Force  Commander  found
that the applicant had committed one or more of the offenses alleged  and
imposed punishment on her consisting of a forfeiture of $1,000 per  month
for two months and a reprimand.  The applicant did not appeal.

On  11  February  1997,  the  applicant  acknowledged  receipt   of   the
notification from the Numbered Air Force Commander of his intent to  file
the Article 15 in  her  Officer  Selection  Record  and  Officer  Command
Selection Record and provided a written statement.  On 20 February  1997,
the Numbered Air Force Commander determined that the record of Article 15
punishment would be filed in her Officer  Selection  Record  and  Officer
Command Selection Record.

On 1 May 1997, the applicant requested separation,  to  be  effective  29
September 1997.  The reasons cited were to  complete  her  MBA;  she  was
disenchanted with the Air Force; and her morale was shattered.   She  was
subsequently  released  from  extended   active   duty   by   reason   of
“Miscellaneous/General  Reasons,”  effective  29  September   1997,   and
transferred to the Air Force Reserve, with  obligated  service  until  15
October 2000.  She had served 4 years, 11 months and 15  days  on  active
duty and received an honorable characterization of service.

The applicant’s OPR profile follows:

            Period Ending    Overall Evaluation

               14 Oct 93     Meets Standards (MS)
               11 Feb 94          MS
               11 Feb 95          MS
               11 Feb 96          MS
            *  16 Dec 96     DOES NOT MEET STANDARDS

*  Contested Report

As of retirement/retention year ending 15 May  2000,  the  applicant  was
credited with 6 years of satisfactory Federal service toward retirement.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The Deputy Chief,  Military  Justice  Division,  AFLSA/JAJM,  recommended
denial.  The majority of the information submitted by the  applicant  has
no bearing on the Article 15 action.  The text of the  No  Contact  Order
issued to the applicant on 18 December 1996, reiterates  the  allegations
in the nonjudicial punishment.  The base  legal  office  file  no  longer
exists and JAJM was unable to determine what evidence was provided to the
commander  to  substantiate  the  offense.   However,  at  a  minimum,  a
statement from the enlisted member asserting the  alleged  activities  in
the Article 15 should have been provided.   In  addition,  the  commander
most likely  had  information  from  the  enlisted  member’s  supervisor.
Therefore, the commander would have had sufficient evidence to  find  the
applicant committed the offense charged.  The evidence presented  by  the
applicant is insufficient to mandate the requested relief  and  does  not
demonstrate an equitable basis for relief (see Exhibit C).

The Chief, Field Activities  Division,  AFPC/DPSFM,  recommended  denial.
The Article 15 automatically established a UIF, with an  expiration  date
of 2 February 2001.  The Article 15 is mandatory for file in  a  UIF  for
officers.  Effective 1 February  1996,  officers  who  receive  a  court-
martial conviction,  Article  15,  or  Letter  of  Reprimand  receive  an
automatic UIF.  The UIF remains on file and is reflected in the personnel
database for four years or until the member has  a  permanent  change  of
station (PCS), whichever is longer.

The applicant was discharged from active duty on 29 September  1997,  and
her UIF would have  been  active.   Active  UIFs  on  separating  officer
personnel are forwarded to the HQ Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC)  to
aid ARPC in their decision to accept an  active  duty  officer  into  the
Reserve.  HQ ARPC maintained the UIF  for  up  to  one  year  unless  the
applicant’s Wing Commander removed it sooner.

AFPC/DPSFM’s  review  indicated  that  the  Article  15  was  offered  in
accordance with the governing instruction; the Numbered Air  Force  Judge
Advocate found the Article 15 legally sufficient; and the  applicant  was
afforded the opportunity to refute the charges.  She did not  appeal  the
Article 15 punishment.  She could also have filed formal complaints  with
the chain of command or the Inspector General  (IG).   The  documentation
submitted by the applicant does not indicate whether she used  her  chain
of command or filed an IG complaint (see Exhibit D).

The  Chief,  Performance  Evaluation  Section,  AFPC/DPPPE,   recommended
denial.  The applicant failed to provide documentation that the  comments
on the OPR closing 16 December 1996, are false or support from her rating
chain to corroborate her allegation that the OPR is wrong.  The applicant
elected not to make comments to the referral OPR and accepted it “as is.”
 AFPC/DPPPE concluded that since the applicant made little or  no  effort
in refuting  the  specific  comments  contained  in  the  OPR,  her  duty
performance  and  behavior/conduct  were  appropriately  documented  (see
Exhibit E).

The Separations Branch, AFPC/DPPRS, recommended denial.   Their  research
confirmed the basis for  the  applicant’s  separation.   She  voluntarily
applied to separate  from  the  Air  Force  on  1  May  1997,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-3207, Miscellaneous Reasons.  The applicant provided
no compelling reason for the Board to favorably consider her request  for
immediate return to active duty (see Exhibit F).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Applicant reiterated her original requests and  voiced  her  disagreement
with the advisory opinions.  Her response, which includes 23 attachments,
is at Exhibit H.

___________________________________________________________________

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 a thorough review of the
evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, the following
conclusions are provided:

      a.  We are not persuaded that the contested Article  15  punishment
should be  set  aside.   The  applicant’s  contentions  are  duly  noted;
however, we do not  find  these  uncorroborated  assertions  sufficiently
persuasive to override the evidence of record or the  rationale  provided
by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility.  In our view, she has
not shown that the nonjudicial  punishment,  imposed  under  Article  15,
UCMJ, was unwarranted, nor has she shown that  the  Article  15  was  not
within legal limits, or was not appropriate to the offense.  In addition,
she has not shown that it was not within  the  commander’s  discretionary
authority to file the Article 15 in her record.  Moreover,  officers  who
receive an Article 15 receive an automatic Unfavorable Information  File,
which remains on file for four years  or  until  a  permanent  change  of
station, whichever is longer.  Therefore, in the  absence  of  persuasive
evidence showing that the imposing commanders abused their  discretionary
authority,  that  her  substantial  rights  were  violated   during   the
processing of the Article 15 punishment, or that the punishment  exceeded
the maximum authorized by the UCMJ, we  find  no  basis  to  disturb  the
existing record.

      b.  With respect to the request that the referral  OPR  closing  30
July 1997 be rewritten, the  applicant’s  contentions  were  duly  noted;
however, we  do  not  find  her  uncorroborated  assertions  sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Chief,  Performance
Evaluation  Section.   Therefore,  we  agree  with  their   opinion   and
recommendation and adopt the rationale expressed as  the  basis  for  our
conclusion that, without supporting documentation from her rating  chain,
no basis exists to recommend voiding or changing the report.

       c.  Regarding  the  requests  for  reinstatement,  promotion   and
attendance at  Squadron  Officers  School  in  residence,  the  applicant
voluntarily applied for separation under the provisions of  AFI  36-3207,
paragraph 2.4.17, Miscellaneous/General Reasons.  Therefore, we find  her
allegations concerning these several requests are without merit.

4.  The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to give  the
Board a clear  understanding  of  the  issues  involved  and  a  personal
appearance, with or without counsel, would not have materially  added  to
that  understanding.   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 22 May 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
                 Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Sep 2000, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 29 Nov 2000.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFM, dated 23 Jan 2001.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 13 Feb 2001.
    Exhibit F.  Letter AFPC/DPPRS, dated 2 Mar 2001.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 16 Mar 2001.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Apr 2001, w/atchs.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair