RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02628
            INDEX NUMBER:  126.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Article 15 he received on 26 Jul  99  be  set  aside  and  he  be
restored to the grade of master sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received the Article 15 based  entirely  on  the  hearsay  of  his
accuser.  The only proof presented to the commander was the  word  of
his accuser to her friends.  None of the allegations against him were
substantiated through other means.

The result of the Article 15 was his demotion to  technical  sergeant
(E-6), which put him at his high year of tenure (HYT) and forced  him
out of service.

Applicant provides his account  of  the  incident  that  led  to  the
Article 15.

Also in support of his appeal,  applicant  provides  a  copy  of  the
Article 15 paperwork with supporting statements and  current  letters
of recommendation addressed to the AFBCMR.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, while serving in the  grade  of  master  sergeant  was
offered an  Article  15  on  1  Jul  99  for  the  following  alleged
violations of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):

        a.  Violation of Article 92, dereliction  of  his  duties  in
that  he  failed  to  refrain  from  engaging  in  an  unprofessional
relationship with a subordinate airman.

        b.  Violation  of  Article  93,  maltreatment  of  an  airman
subject to his orders, by offering to influence her job  in  exchange
for sexual favors.

        c.  Violation  of  Article  125,  committing  sodomy  with  a
subordinate airman.

        d.  Violation of Article 134, he, a married  man,  wrongfully
had sexual intercourse with a subordinate airman,  a  woman  not  his
wife.

The applicant accepted proceedings under Article 15 on 23 Jul 99.  On
26 Jul 99, the commander determined that he had committed the alleged
offenses and imposed punishment consisting of reduction to the  grade
of TSgt.  The applicant elected not to appeal.

The applicant retired in the grade of TSgt effective 1 Dec 99 with 20
years of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request.   They
provide an account  of  the  incidents  leading  to  the  applicant’s
Article 15 as given by the  accuser.   By  electing  to  resolve  the
allegations in  the  nonjudicial  forum,  the  applicant  placed  the
responsibility  to  determine  an  appropriate  punishment  with  his
commander.  Likewise, his commander was given the  responsibility  to
determine an appropriate punishment if the commander  determined  the
applicant had committed one or both of the offenses.   The  commander
had to weigh all the  evidence,  including  the  credibility  of  the
various witnesses, and make his decision.  The  commander  ultimately
resolved the issues of the alleged misconduct against the  applicant.
Applicant chose not to appeal the  commander’s  determination,  which
prevented a timely look by another commander at the issues  applicant
now raises again, over three years later.

There was sufficient evidence for the commander to determine that the
applicant  had  committed  the  alleged  offenses.   The  applicant’s
arguments failed to convince the  commander.   While  different  fact
finders may have come to  a  different  conclusion,  the  commander’s
findings are neither arbitrary  nor  capricious  and  should  not  be
disturbed.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB evaluated the effect of a set aside  of  the  applicant’s
Article  15  on  his  promotion  to  MSgt.    They   defer   to   the
recommendation of AFLSA/JAJM regarding the propriety of setting aside
the Article 15.  If the Board elects to set aside the Article 15, the
applicant’s effective date and date of rank would be 1 Apr 98.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  the  applicant
on 11 Oct 02 for review and comment  within  30  days.   To  date,  a
response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale  as
the basis for our conclusion that the  applicant  has  not  been  the
victim of an error  or  injustice.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of 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 Docket Number  02-02628
in Executive Session on 23 January 2003, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

      Ms. Cathlynn Sparks, Panel Chair
      Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 20 Sep 02.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 1 Oct 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 11 Oct 02.




                                   CATHLYNN SPARKS
                                   Panel Chair