RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00189

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Article 15 imposed on 18 February 1999 be removed from her records
and  the  reenlistment  eligibility  (RE)   and   separation   program
designator (SPD) codes be changed so that  she  may  reenter  the  Air
Force Reserve.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The RE code 4H assigned was not applicable in accordance with AFR 700-
20, Vol II, SDS SE 602, Part 1; AFR; 39-10, Table 1-4, and AFR  35-16,
Tables 6-2, 6-3 and 6-4, “Airmen with  a  remaining  military  service
obligation (MSO) who are not eligible to return for reenlistment  will
be discharged and assigned RBA code 2# or 4#.”  She was told after her
unfavorable information file (UIF) expired she was eligible to  return
to Active Reserve.  Her MSO remaining is  14  May  2004  and  she  was
released to the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR).  Her  SPD  according  to
the operating instructions (OI’s) is for airmen  being  released  from
active duty.  The two codes do not correspond.  Also, the  Article  15
punishment was to take money from her pay, yet she was  released  from
her active duty assignment with  half  of  her  separation  pay.   The
amount on the DD Form 214 was not the amount she received from finance
in her final pay (approximately $8,500 after taxes).  So this is  also
incorrect.  The technician who processed and  typed  the  orders  said
this amount was according to Robins AFB Active Duty Pay Section.   Air
Force Reserve Personnel Records  stated  that  her  code  should  have
changed automatically in the system after the Article 15 expired,  but
as of now,  it  has  not  been  updated.   She  requests  the  Board’s
assistance in this matter so she may continue  her  Air  Force  career
with pride.

Applicant’s complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________




STATEMENT OF FACTS:

By Special Order AB-288, dated 24 September  1998,  the  applicant,  a
Reservist, was ordered  to  extended  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
technical sergeant for a period of 48 months and entered  active  duty
on 1 October 1998.

On 10 February 1999, applicant was notified of her commander’s  intent
to impose nonjudicial punishment upon her for the following  offenses:
Between on or about 7 August 1997  and       24  November  1998,  with
intent to defraud and for the  procurement  of  lawful  currency,  she
wrongfully and unlawfully made  and  uttered  to  the  Army/Air  Force
Exchange System (AAFES) certain checks for the payment of money  drawn
upon the Safe Federal Credit Union in the total  amount  of  $5,231.66
knowing that she did not or would not  have  sufficient  funds  in  or
credit with the bank for payment of said checks; on or  about  28  May
1998, with the intent to deceive, made  an  official  statement  to  a
senior master  sergeant  that  she  was  not  currently  in  financial
trouble, and that she had never been behind on  her  American  Express
Government Card, which statement was totally false, and was  known  by
her to be false; and between on  or  about  1  August  1998  and    30
December 1998, she violated lawful  regulation,  to  wit:   Air  Force
Instructions 65-104, dated 1 May 1996,  in  that  she  failed  to  pay
American Express card account in the amount of $2,479.95.

On 16 February 1999, after consulting with counsel,  applicant  waived
her right to a trial by court-martial, requested a personal appearance
and submitted a written presentation.

On 18 February 1999, she was found guilty by her commander who imposed
the following punishment: suspended  forfeiture  of  $200.00  pay  per
month for  2  months;  suspended  reduction  to  the  grade  of  staff
sergeant, and a reprimand.

On 18 February 1999, she was advised by her commander that her  active
duty tour was being curtailed due to her abuse and delinquency of  her
government travel card,  financial  irresponsibility,  and  falsifying
recruiting application.

On 26 March 1999, she was honorably  released  from  her  active  duty
assignment and transferred to the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR), in the
grade of technical sergeant, with an RE code of 4H and a SPD  code  of
LBK, and given half pay separation.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial.  The applicant admits in her response to
the nonjudicial punishment action that she was “very irresponsible  in
her financial affairs.”  Contrary to her  assertion,  the  applicant’s
actions were not isolated and took place from Aug  97  to  Dec  98,  a
period well in excess of a year.  The applicant charged  almost  $2500
on her government American Express card and failed to pay  on  it  for
almost 5 months, wrote 32 bad checks totaling over $5200 to  Army  Air
Force Exchange Service (AAFES) over the course of 15 months, and  lied
to senior noncommissioned officers concerning her financial situation.
  Considering  the  magnitude  of  her  offenses  it  is  clear   that
nonjudicial punishment was appropriate  and  court-martial  for  these
offenses would  have  been  neither  inappropriate  nor  unreasonable.
Additionally, the punishment imposed on the applicant was  lawful  and
appropriate, even quite lenient, for the offenses committed.

It should be  noted  that  the  applicant  indicates  the  Article  15
punishment was to take money from her pay, yet she was  released  from
active duty with half separation pay.  The forfeitures imposed as part
of the  punishment  were  suspended.   As  the  suspension  was  never
vacated, money would not have been forfeited from her pay.  As to  the
amount of separation pay received by the applicant  and  whether  that
amount was accurate, that is a Defense Finance and Accounting  Service
(DFAS) issue and should be addressed by that organization.

The applicant has provided no evidence of a clear error  or  injustice
related to the nonjudicial punishment proceedings.  They recommend the
Board deny the applicant’s request to have the action removed from her
records.

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

AFRC/RSOO recommends no change to her records.   After  reviewing  the
application, there is no injustice or error indicated in  her  records
requiring a correction.  The applicant did receive an Article  15  and
her re-enlistment code reflects  such.   As  a  result,  they  do  not
recommend a change to her records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 27 Jul 01 for review and comments within 30 days.  As  of
this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

DFAS-POCC/DE provided the actual amount of separation pay paid to  the
applicant and found she was due 5 percent separation pay  at  date  of
separation on 26 Mar 01.

The following is the calculation used in determining what  was  posted
to the member’s Master Military Pay Account (MMPA):

      Base Pay:  $2,073.30 X 12 X 10.75 (10  years  and  9  months  of
total active service) X .05% = $13,372.78.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the DFAS-POCC/DE evaluation was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 23 Aug 01 for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of
this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/RSOO revised their original advisory and stated:

The applicant did in fact receive and accepted the  Article  15.   She
had the opportunity to  appeal  the  punishment,  but  did  not.   The
Article 15 was served on 18 Feb 99.  On 26 Mar 99, the  applicant  was
involuntarily separated; therefore no other adverse  action  could  be
taken.

The HQ AFRC Commander recommends individuals who misuse and abuse  the
government travel card be discharged rather than transferring  to  the
Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR).  The applicant was  transferred  to  the
IRR with a reenlistment eligibility (RE) Code of 4H,  when  she  could
have been discharged.

Recruiting  concurs  with   AFLSA/JAJM’s   recommendation   that   the
applicant’s Article 15 remain in her records since the  facts  of  the
circumstances leading to the punishment have not changed.  They  again
recommend denial of the  applicant’s  request.   Her  RE  code  should
remain a 4H.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 7 Sep 01 for review and comment 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.  The  evidence  reflects
that the commander initiated Article 15 action based on information he
determined to be reliable and that the nonjudicial action was properly
accomplished and applicant was afforded all rights granted by  statute
and regulation.  We have not been convinced, by her  submission,  that
her commander abused his discretionary authority when he  imposed  the
nonjudicial punishment, and since we find no abuse of that  authority,
we find no reason to overturn the commander’s decision.  Based on  the
circumstances surrounding her separation from the Air Force,  we  find
no error or injustice in regard to the RE code issued.   In  addition,
it appears she was paid the  appropriate  amount  of  separation  pay.
Therefore, lacking substantial evidence  to  the  contrary,  no  basis
exists to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request to the
contested Article 15 and reentry code.

_________________________________________________________________

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 15 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chair
                 Mr. Clyde L. Williams, Member
                 Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Aug 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 17 Apr 01.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFRC/RSOO, dated 16 Jul 01.
      Exhibit E. Letter SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Jul 01.
      Exhibit F. Letter, DFAS-POCC/DE, dated, 15 Aug 01.
      Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Aug 01.
      Exhibit H. Letter, AFRC/RSOO, dated 21 Aug 01
      Exhibit I. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 7 Sep 01.




      HENRY ROMO, JR
      Panel Chair