RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03767
            INDEX CODE:  110.03, 126.03,
                         126.04

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 imposed on 30  May  02  be
set aside and removed from his records.

The Letters of Reprimand (LORs) dated 15 Apr 02, 23 May 02, and 31 May
02 be declared void and removed from his records.

He be allowed to reenter the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The allegations made against him by two other airmen,  which  resulted
in his receiving an  Article  15,  were  not  true,  and  one  of  the
individuals retracted her allegation.

He was initially denied counsel and redress.

Three of the four LORs he received were unjust.

He made a mistake and did not conduct himself in  a  professional  and
positive manner as a representative of the Air Force.  He  feels  that
he has the desire and qualities required to be successful if given the
opportunity to pursue his chosen career path.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided personal  statements,
documentation pertaining to the Article 15, and copies of the LORs.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15  Jan  02  for  a
period of six years in the grade of airman basic.

On 22 Jun 02, the applicant’s commander  notified  him  that  she  was
recommending  that  the  applicant  be  discharged  for  entry   level
performance or conduct.  The reasons for this action were:

      a.  On or  about  31  May  02,  he  violated  a  lawful  general
instruction by not having his hair cut  within  Air  Force  standards.
For this misconduct, he received an AF Form 174, Record of  Individual
Counseling on 4 Jun 02.

      b.  On or about  31  May  02,  he  failed  to  go  at  the  time
prescribed to his appointed place of duty (Lt N---‘s  office  at  0700
hours).  For this misconduct, he received an LOR on 31 May 02.

      c.  Between on or about 24 May 02 and on or about 31 May 02,  he
committed an indecent assault upon a  female  airman  by  placing  his
hands on her crotch and rubbing her thigh, with intent to gratify  his
sexual desires.  For this  misconduct  and  paragraph  “d”  below,  he
received an Article 15 on 30 May 02.

      d.  On or about 14 May 02, he committed an indecent assault upon
a female airman by kissing her and placing her hand on his  underwear,
with the intent to gratify his sexual desires.

      e.  On or about  22  May  02,  he  failed  to  go  at  the  time
prescribed to his appointed place  of  duty  (to  school  after  being
released from the hospital).  For this misconduct, he received an  LOR
on 23 May 02.

      f.  On or about 20 Apr 02, he was derelict in the performance of
his duties in that he failed to refrain from punching a hole in a wall
locker, as it was his duty to do.  For this misconduct, he received an
LOR on 20 May 02.

      g.  On or about 15 Apr 02, he was derelict in the performance of
his duties in that he failed to sign in on the High Risk Log  at  1800
hours.  For this misconduct, he received an LOR on 15 Apr 02.

The applicant was advised of his rights in  the  matter  and  that  an
entry level separation would be recommended.

On 2 Jul 02,  the  Office  of  the  Staff  Judge  Advocate  found  the
discharge case file to be legally sufficient and  concurred  with  the
commander’s  recommendation  for  an  entry  level  separation.    The
discharge authority approved  the  separation  of  the  applicant  and
directed that he be furnished an entry level separation.

On 3 Jul 02, the applicant was separated under the provisions  of  AFI
36-3208 (Entry Level Performance and  Conduct)  with  an  entry  level
separation.  He was credited with 5  months  and  19  days  of  active
service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommended denial.  They indicated that a set aside of  an
Article 15 should only be granted when the  evidence  demonstrates  an
error or a clear injustice.  The evidence presented by  the  applicant
was insufficient to warrant setting aside the Article 15  action,  and
did not demonstrate an equitable  basis  for  relief.   The  applicant
provided no evidence of a clear error  or  injustice  related  to  the
nonjudicial punishment action.  With respect to the  LORs,  AFLSA/JAJM
stated that they are administrative  in  nature  and  are  within  the
commander’s  and  supervisor’s  discretion.   It  appeared  that   the
commander followed established rules in the manner in which  the  LORs
were administered and the applicant was given sufficient time to rebut
them.  In AFLSA/JAJM’s view, the commander’s and supervisor’s judgment
should not be overturned at this time.  They were clearly aware of the
facts and made reasoned and sound decisions based on the evidence they
had before them.

A complete copy of the AFLSA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS indicated that based on the documentation in the file, they
believe  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the   procedural   and
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, and  was  within
the sound discretion of the discharge  authority.   Airmen  are  given
entry-level separation/uncharacterized service  characterization  when
separation is initiated in the first 180  days  of  continuous  active
service.  The Department of the Defense (DoD)  determined  that  if  a
member served less than 180 days  of  continuous  active  service,  it
would be unfair to the member and the service  to  characterize  their
limited service.  Therefore, the applicant's uncharacterized character
of service is correct  and  in  accordance  with  DoD  and  Air  Force
Instructions.  An entry level/uncharacterized separation should not be
confused with other types of separation.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE  indicated   that   the   applicant's   RE   code   of   2C
("Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry  level
separation without characterization of service,") is correct.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  30
May 03 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.   However,  we  do  not  find  the  applicant’s  uncorroborated
assertions or the documentation presented sufficiently  persuasive  to
override the rationale provided by the Air Force  offices  of  primary
responsibility (OPRs).  The evidence  of  record  indicates  that  the
applicant was given an entry level  separation  for  misconduct  as  a
result of his receiving an Article 15, four LORs, and counseling.   We
find no evidence which would lead us to believe that  the  information
used as a basis for his separation was erroneous or was  an  abuse  of
discretionary authority.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence
of sufficient evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  adopt  the  Air  Force
rationale and conclude that no compelling basis  exists  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

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   issues   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-
2002-03767 in Executive Session on 8 Jul 03, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Chair
      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Member
      Ms. Carolyn J. Watkins-Taylor, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Oct 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 14 Mar 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Apr 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 21 May 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Chair