RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03716
            INDEX CODE:  126.00

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  NONE

      SSN   HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The punishment imposed upon her under  Article  15,  Uniform  Code  of
Military Justice (UMCJ), dated 17 September 2001,  be  set  aside  and
expunged from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She vehemently denies committing the alleged offense as stated, as the
grounds for the Article 15.  Her undocumented statement to  the  First
Sergeant was taken out of context and is not adequate proof to warrant
an Article 15.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of master sergeant.

On 5 September 2001, the applicant was  notified  of  her  commander’s
intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon her for  making  a  false
official  statement  and   leaving   her   place   of   duty   without
authorization.

After consulting with her counsel on 10 September 2001, she waived her
right to trial by court-martial and accepted the Article 15.

She submitted a written presentation and made  a  personal  appearance
before her commander.   The  commander  upon  reviewing  all  evidence
determined the  applicant  was  guilty.   The  commander  imposed  the
punishment of a reprimand and forfeiture of $400.00  of  pay  a  month
for two months,  with one month suspended until 16 March 2002,  unless
sooner vacated.

The applicant submitted an appeal to the appellate  authority  and  it
was denied on 25 September 2001.  The Article  15  was  filed  in  the
applicant’s Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM states Article 15s are permitted and governed by the Manual
for Courts-Martial (MCM) and AFI 51-202.  This  allows  commanders  to
dispose of certain offenses without trial by court-martial unless  the
service member objects.  The commander,  before  imposing  nonjudicial
punishment, must notify the  service  member  of  the  nature  of  the
charged offense(s), the  evidence  supporting  the  offense,  and  the
commander's intent  to  impose  nonjudical  punishment.   The  service
member then may consult with counsel to aid in determining whether  to
accept the nonjudicial punishment or demand a trial by  court-martial.
Acceptance of the proceedings is a choice  of  forum;  it  is  not  an
admission of guilt.

The service member in accepting the nonjudicial punishment may have  a
hearing with the  commander.   He  may  have  a  spokesperson  at  the
hearing, he may have witnesses appear and  testify,  and  can  present
evidence.  The  commander  must  consider  any  information  presented
during the hearing and must be  convinced  through  reliable  evidence
that the service member committed  the  offense  before  imposing  the
Article  15.   The  service  member  may  contest  their   commander's
determination or severity of the punishment received and may appeal to
the next higher commander.  The appeal authority  may  set  aside  the
punishment, decrease its severity, or deny  the  appeal.   Nonjudicial
punishment does not constitute a criminal conviction.

The evidence shows the applicant had a  history  of  unauthorized  and
unexplained absences.  The applicant’s supervisor, on  11  June  2001,
counseled her about continuing to leave the  office  for  an  extended
period of time without talking to her  (supervisor).   The  supervisor
informed her that personal appointments were excessive  to  the  point
she was away from the office more than at work.   The  First  Sergeant
interviewed the applicant on 14 August 2001 and  she  stated  she  was
late  for  work  on  17  July  2001,  because  she  was  at  a  dental
appointment, but would not reveal any of  the  details  regarding  the
dental appointment.  The applicant eventually admitted  that  she  did
not have an appointment but that she had called her supervisor to  let
her know where she was.  The supervisor stated that she did  not  know
where the applicant was.  The supervisor further stated  at  7:55AM  a
customer came and wanted to see the applicant; at 8:15AM the  customer
grew tired of waiting and requested to see the manager.  The applicant
did not arrive to work until 8:45AM.  The  First  Sergeant  concluded,
“it has become obvious that she cannot tell the truth and consistently
changes her story to meet her personal agenda.”  The First  Sergeant’s
statement summarizing  the  interview  was  proper  evidence  for  the
commander to consider when determining whether the applicant committed
the alleged offenses.

JAJM further states that this case  illustrates  the  difficulties  in
addressing the factual issues involved in nonjudicial punishment after
the fact.  They feel the applicant  should  not  prevail  here  absent
clear error or injustice.  The applicant, by electing to  resolve  the
allegation in the  nonjudical  forum,  placed  the  responsibility  to
decide whether she  did  or  did  not  commit  the  offense  with  her
commander.  The commander then has the responsibility to determine the
appropriate punishment if he determined the  applicant  committed  the
offense.  The commander weighed  all  the  evidence,  to  include  the
credibility of various witness, in making her decision.  The commander
determined the applicant committed  the  alleged  misconduct  and  the
appellate authority agreed and provided the  applicant  no  relief  on
appeal.

Based on the information and evidence provided,  JAJM  recommends  the
applicant's request be denied.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
21 February 2003, for review  and  response.   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 error or injustice regarding the applicant’s requests
that the Article 15 imposed on 17 September  2001  be  set  aside  and
expunged from her records.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete
submission in judging the merits of the case.   However,  we  did  not
find it sufficient to override the rationale provided  by  AFLSA/JAJM.
The evidence of record reflects that her commander determined that she
had committed the alleged offense of making a false official statement
and leaving her place of duty without authority, and made the decision
to impose nonjudicial  punishment  under  Article  15.   We  note  the
applicant elected to accept nonjudicial rather  than  being  tried  by
court-martial.  We are  not  inclined  to  disturb  the  discretionary
judgment of commanding officers, who are closer to  events,  absent  a
strong showing of abuse of that authority.  Therefore, in the  absence
of evidence which shows  to  our  satisfaction  that  the  applicant’s
substantial rights were violated, she was coerced to waive any of  her
rights, or the commander who imposed the nonjudicial punishment abused
his discretionary authority, we  conclude  that  no  basis  exists  to
recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request.

4.    The applicant's case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-03716 in Executive Session on 24 April 2003 under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
                 Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Oct 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 3 Feb 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Feb 03.




                                        THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                        Vice Chair