RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  01-02382
            INDEX CODE 126.04  126.02
            COUNSEL:  Angela P. Rose

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Article 15 imposed on her on 17 Jan 01 be removed from her records
and her grade of senior airman (SRA) be reinstated.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Article 15 for being absent without leave (AWOL) was unfair  since
she was either at her place of duty or performing Honor  Guard  duties
during the dates in question. Her Honor Guard duties required  her  to
be absent from her normally appointed place of duty.  Her  supervisors
were aware of this and she kept them informed. Her  chain  of  command
never questioned her whereabouts for this lengthy  period  of  alleged
absence,  nor  did  they  conduct  a  simple  investigation  with  her
supervisors and co-workers.  She  believes  a  heated  telephone  call
between her husband and her supervisor may have added impetus  to  her
receiving the Article 15 rather than a lesser form  of  administrative
action. She provides a copy of her Article  15,  appeal  presentations
and supporting statements.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the period in question, the applicant was a SRA assigned as  an
active duty service commitment analyst at Randolph AFB, TX.

The overall ratings of her Enlisted Performance Reports (EPR) from  24
Aug 95 through 2 Apr 01 are: 5, 5, 5, 4 and 2 (Referral).

On 8 Jan 01, the applicant was notified  of  her  section  commander's
intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon her for failing to go  to
her appointed place of  duty  at  Randolph  AFB  on  divers  occasions
between 12 Sep and 10 Dec 00.  On 11 Jan  01,  after  consulting  with
counsel, applicant waived her right to a trial by  court-martial,  did
not  request  a  personal  appearance  but  did   submit   a   written
presentation. On 17 Jan 01, the applicant  was  found  guilty  by  her
commander who reduced her to airman first class (A1C) with a new  date
of rank (DOR) of 17 Jan 01.

Applicant appealed the punishment; however, the appeal was denied on 5
Feb 01.  The Article 15 was filed in her Unfavorable Information  File
(UIF).

On 12 Apr 01, the EPR closing 2 Apr 01 was referred to the  applicant.
Section III, Evaluation of Performance, reflected that she  failed  to
meet minimum standards,  had  unacceptable  on/off  duty  conduct  and
ineffective supervisory/leadership skills. The overall rating  was  2,
meaning she was not recommended for promotion at that time. The  rater
commented that the applicant had  failed  to  meet  standards  through
negligence of personal accountability and had received an  Article  15
for failure to report to her duty section on numerous  occasions.  The
Additional Rater noted that  comments  from  the  applicant  were  not
received within the required period.

On 1 Jun 01, she requested that the Article 15 be set aside,  but  the
section commander denied her request on 26 Jun 01.

She then filed an Inspector General (IG) complaint.  On 8 Aug 01,  the
HQ AFPC/IG advised  her  that  her  complaint  was  dismissed  because
Articles 15s were not under the purview of the IG.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM notes that accepting nonjudicial punishment proceedings  is
simply a choice of forum;  it  is  not  an  admission  of  guilt.  The
evidence demonstrates there was significant concern by her supervisors
and that she had been cautioned  about  her  absences  from  her  duty
location. Contrary to her assertions,  there  is  ample  evidence  the
honor guard supervisors were consulted about her honor  guard  duties.
There was sufficient evidence  for  the  commander  to  determine  the
offense had been  committed.   The  applicant's  arguments  failed  to
convince either the commander who imposed punishment or the  appellate
authority.  While a different fact finder may have come to a different
conclusion,  the  commander's  findings  were  neither  arbitrary  nor
capricious and should not be disturbed. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advised that the applicant's referral EPR  renders  her
ineligible for promotion consideration. She  will  regain  eligibility
only after receiving an EPR with a rating of 3 or higher that is not a
referral, provided she is otherwise qualified and recommended  by  the
commander.  She will meet the 20 months  minimum  time-in-grade  (TIG)
requirement for promotion  to  SRA  on  17  Sep  02.   They  defer  to
AFLSA/JAJM's recommendation.  However,  should  the  Board  grant  her
request, her former DOR and effective date of SRA was 24 Aug 98.   She
would not be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration for  the
01E5 cycle because of the referral EPR.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the evaluations were forwarded to the applicant  on
18 Jan 02 for  review  and  comment  within  30  days.  The  applicant
subsequently requested that her case be temporarily withdrawn in order
to  have  more  time  to  rebut.   As   a   result,   her   case   was
administratively closed on 25 Feb 02.

The applicant provided a response on 21 Mar 02 and  asserts  that  her
superintendent influenced the commander in his  decision  not  to  set
aside the Article 15.  She provides a clarification statement from the
flight chief honor guard as well as a supporting  statement  from  her
area defense  counsel  (ADC)  and  others.   She  wants  to  have  the
injustice done to  her  unveiled  and  her  record  cleared  of  these
charges. She wants her SRA stripe reinstated.

A complete copy of  applicant’s  response,  with  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 to  warrant  voiding  the
Article 15. We thoroughly reviewed  the  applicant’s  contentions  and
complete  submission.  However,  she  has  not  presented   sufficient
evidence persuading us that the nonjudicial punishment was improper or
unjust. In cases of this nature,  we  are  reluctant  to  disturb  the
judgments of command officers absent a  strong  showing  of  abuse  of
discretionary authority. The statements submitted in her  behalf  were
noted, but in our view they do not overcome the fact that her absences
from her duty station  were  not  always  accountable.  Based  on  the
available evidence, it appears the applicant was offered  every  right
to which she was entitled. After considering the matters raised by the
applicant, the commander determined that she  had  committed  “one  or
more of the offenses alleged” and imposed punishment.   The  applicant
has not provided convincing evidence that the  imposing  commander  or
the appellate authority abused their discretionary authority, that her
substantial rights were violated during the processing of the  Article
15 punishment, or that the punishment was excessive. In  view  of  the
above and absent persuasive evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 18 April 2002 under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Martha Maust, Member
                 Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR  No.  01-02382
was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Aug 01, w/atchs
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 11 Dec 01.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 9 Jan 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jan 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Feb 02.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Feb 02.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Mar 02.




                                   ROGER E. WILLMETH
                                   Panel Chair