RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00260

                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR)  dated  14  June  2000  and  the
Unfavorable Information File (UIF) be removed from his records.

2.  The punishment imposed upon him under Article 15, Uniform Code  of
Military Justice (UCMJ), dated 26 December 2000 be set aside.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:


The unfavorable information is in error or unjust.  He  states  he  is
innocent of the charges that are the basis for the Article 15  action.
He also states he did not fail to go on 18 September 2000,  since  AFI
65-103 states that any day in excess of the permissive  TDY  would  be
chargeable leave.


In support of the appeal, applicant submits his Article 15 submissions
including numerous character references, and performance reports.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in  the  grade
of staff sergeant.

On 14 June 2000, applicant received an LOR for failure to return  from
emergency leave by a specified date.  On 22 June 2000,  the  applicant
provided a rebuttal, stating that he never noticed the return date  on
his flight itinerary differed from the date he actually thought he was
returning.

On 24 October 2000, applicant was served an Article 15 for failure  to
return to work after a permissive TDY (PTDY).  The applicant  declined
the Article 15 via memorandum dated 30 October 2000.  He  pointed  out
that the AF Form 988, Leave Request/Authorization, reflected his  PTDY
dates as             13-20 September 2000, yet he was charged with not
reporting for duty on 18 September 2000.  Based on  the  documentation
submitted the matter was temporarily dropped.  On  13  December  2000,
the applicant’s commander reissued  the  Article  15  for  failure  to
report to work on 18 September  2000  (after  his  PTDY);  failure  to
refrain from administering  a  vaccine  to  members  of  a  particular
squadron; and making a statement, with intent to  deceive,  concerning
the fact that he (the applicant)  was  authorized  to  administer  the
above referenced vaccine.

On 20 December 2000, after consulting with counsel,  applicant  waived
his right to a trial by court-martial,  did  not  request  a  personal
appearance and submitted a written presentation.

On 26 December 2000, applicant’s commander found  that  the  applicant
had committed the  offenses  and  imposed  the  following  punishment:
Reduction to the grade of Senior Airman, suspended until 25 June 2001,
after which time it will be remitted without  further  action,  unless
sooner vacated, and 20 days extra duty.  After  careful  consideration
and review of all matters submitted,  the  commander  set  aside  that
portion of the punishment which consisted of a suspended reduction  to
the grade of Senior Airman.  The remaining portion of  the  punishment
remained in effect.

Applicant did appeal the punishment; however, the appeal was denied on
1  January  2001.   The  Article  15  was  filed  in  his  Unfavorable
Information File (UIF).

EPR profile since 1996 follows:

            PERIOD ENDING         OVERALL EVALUATION

                 10 May 96              5
                 10 May 97              5
                 10 May 98              5
                 30 Jan 99              5
                 30 Jan 00              5
                 29 Dec 00              3

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Associate Chief, Military Justice Division,  AFLSA/JAJM,  reviewed
the application and states  that  after  reviewing  the  evidence  and
applicant’s submissions, the commander found the  applicant  committed
the offenses alleged.  The punishment imposed  on  the  applicant  was
lawful and extremely lenient for the offenses committed.

In reference to the applicant contending that he did not fail to go on
18 September, since AFI 65-103 states that any day in  excess  of  the
permissive TDY would be chargeable leave;  they  point  out  that  Air
Force Instruction 36-3003, para 12.3.8, states  that  unit  commanders
should charge leave for any additional  absence  beyond  the  approved
permissive TDY.  They further state the applicant fails to acknowledge
that his commander would have to approve whatever leave  he  requested
in conjunction with the permissive TDY.  Although he called  into  his
squadron on 18 September 2000, the applicant  failed  to  contact  the
appropriate individual(s) who could authorize his leave.   They  state
he determined on his own accord that he would take  a  day  of  leave.
The further state, as a non-commissioned officer, it is reasonable  to
conclude the applicant was or should have been aware of the  necessary
authorization he would need to be granted leave.

In reference to the applicant stating his flight commander told him to
start routinely immunizing all of  36th  Airlift  Squadron  and  374th
Security Forces Squadron members on  mobility  status,  the  commander
reviewed statements provided by both  the  flight  commander  and  the
applicant and he found the flight commander’s  statement  to  be  more
credible than the applicant.

They state the applicant provided no evidence  of  a  clear  error  or
injustice related  to  the  nonjudicial  punishment  proceedings.   In
addition, the applicant was granted relief in that the majority of his
appeal was granted.  The remaining  punishment  was  extremely  light,
consisting solely of 20 days extra duty.

They further state that set aside should only be utilized where, under
all the circumstances of the case, the punishment has  resulted  in  a
clear injustice.  Which is not the case here.  The evidence  presented
by the applicant is insufficient to mandate the relief requested,  and
does not demonstrate an equitable basis for relief.   Therefore,  they
recommend denial of applicant’s request to have  his  Article  15  set
aside.

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

The Chief, Field Activities Division, AFPC/DPSF, recommends relief  be
provided.  They normally work under the  premise  that  a  commander’s
decision-making authority is paramount when issuing LORs  or  imposing
Article 15 punishment.  However,  while  technically  correct  in  the
administration of the derogatory  data,  the  applicant  has  provided
documentation that lends credence to his version of the events and the
AFI and AF Form 988 validate his assertions regarding the PTDY  issue.
They state, if the emergency  leave  issue  wasn’t  held  against  the
applicant as  a  second  incident,  the  PTDY  issue  (for  which  the
applicant was correct) might not have been included in the Article 15.
  Additionally,  the   documentation   submitted   demonstrates   that
vaccination  policy  in  the   immunization   clinic   wasn’t   clear.
Therefore, they believe this warrants approval of his request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed  the  advisory  opinions  and  states  that  he
believes this situation to be just a blip in  his  career  that  seeks
unbiased overview.  He states there were no intentions to deceive  the
government.  He states the he is providing more  evidence  that  would
outline more circumstances  that  he  inhibited  during  his  time  of
mismanagement.  He is not intending the debase anyone character,  just
to point out the wrong that was simply done  to  him  because  it  was
allowed.

Applicant's  complete  response,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice warranting removal of the
contested Article 15 from applicant’s record and from his  Unfavorable
Information File.  After reviewing the evidence of record, we  believe
that sufficient doubt exists as  to  the  accuracy  of  the  contested
Article 15.  In this respect, we note that the Chief, Field Activities
Division, indicates in his advisory that the  applicant  has  provided
documentation that lends credence to his version of the events and the
AFI and AF Form 988 validates  applicant’s  assertions  regarding  the
PTDY issue.  In addition, we note that the vaccination policy  in  the
immunization clinic was not clear.  In view of the above findings  and
in an effort to remove any possibility of an injustice,  we  recommend
that the applicant’s records be  corrected  to  the  extent  indicated
below.

4.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice  in  regard  to  the
contested LOR.  After reviewing the evidence of  record,  we  are  not
persuaded that the actions taken against the applicant constituted  an
abuse of discretion on the part  of  his  NCOIC.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis  upon  which  to
recommend removal of the contested LOR from applicant’s records.

_________________________________________________________________




THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

    a.  The Article 15, UCMJ, initiated  on  13  December  2000,  with
punishment imposed on 26 December 2000, be void and expunged from  his
records, and all rights, privileges and property of which he may  have
been deprived be restored.

    b.  Any reference to the above Article  15  being  placed  in  his
Unfavorable Information File (UIF) be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 18 December 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                  Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member
              Ms. Martha Maust, Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Jan 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 20 Jun 01.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSF, dated 27 Aug 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 Aug 01.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant's Response, dated 28 Sep 01, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair








AFBCMR 01-00260





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, be corrected to show that:

                a.  The Article 15, UCMJ, initiated on 13 December
2000, with punishment imposed on 26 December 2000, be, and hereby is,
declared void and expunged from his records, and all rights,
privileges and property of which he may have been deprived be
restored.

                b.  Any reference to the above Article 15 being placed
in his Unfavorable Information File (UIF) be, and hereby is, declared
void and removed.






            JOE G. LINEBERGER

            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency