RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03991
            INDEX NUMBER:  126.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX   COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Article 15 imposed on him 22 Jul 99 be  set  aside  and  that  all
property, rights, and privileges of which he was deprived be restored.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Orderly Room and command section of his assigned  squadron  failed
to assist him during a time of need by  denying  his  request  for  an
extension of time to complete outprocessing actions  and  by  bringing
unfounded charges against him.  He had a sufficient balance of accrued
leave for his request to be considered.

In support of his appeal, applicant provides copies of the Article  15
documents, character references, a copy of a  leave  document,  and  a
copy of a Congressional complaint he filed.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 6 Feb 79.  He retired effective 1
Feb 00 in the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt)   (E-6)  for  maximum
service or time in grade.

On 12 Jul 99, while assigned at Aviano Air Base, serving in the  grade
of master sergeant (MSgt) (E-7), the applicant  was  notified  by  his
commander that he was considering whether to punish him under  Article
15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for violation of  Article
92, UCMJ.  Specifically, the applicant was accused of  dereliction  of
duty in that he willfully failed to complete outprocessing actions  at
Pass and Registration, his squadron, and the military personnel flight
(MPF) prior to his scheduled  departure  for  a  permanent  change  of
station.

On 19 Jul 99, the applicant accepted proceedings under Article 15.  He
consulted counsel, requested a personal appearance,  and  submitted  a
written presentation.  On 22 Jul 99,  the  commander  found  that  the
applicant had committed the offense.  He imposed punishment consisting
of reduction to the grade of technical sergeant and a  reprimand.   On
27 Jul 99, the applicant  appealed  the  punishment  and  submitted  a
written presentation to the appeal  authority.   On  12  Aug  99,  the
appellate authority denied the applicant’s appeal.   Due  to  his  new
grade of TSgt, the applicant was required to retire  at  20  years  of
service, approximately six months later.

A resume of the applicant’s  last  ten  enlisted  performance  reports
(EPRs) follows:

      Closeout Date                          Overall Rating

        15 Nov 90                                  4
        24 Jan 92                                  4
        24 Jan 93                                  4
        04 Oct 93                                  4
        04 Oct 94                                  4
        04 Oct 95                                  3
       *04 Oct 96                                  2
        04 Oct 97                                  4
        04 Oct 98                                  5
        30 May 99                                  3

*  Referral Report

Additional facts relevant to this case are contained in the evaluation
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force found  at  Exhibit
C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to  set  aside
his Article 15.

The applicant was scheduled to transfer from his  overseas  assignment
to his new stateside assignment with a report not later than  date  of
14 Aug 99.  His Date of Expected Return from Overseas (DEROS)  was  30
Jun 99, which meant that he was supposed to report to  the  states  on
that date.  The applicant established a port call of 30 Jun  99.   The
flight out had a show time of 0800 and a departure time of 1100.

During his verbal presentation to the commander during the Article  15
process, the applicant acknowledged that his  unit  had  released  him
from duty on 14 Jun 99, giving him 16 calendar days  to  complete  the
necessary outprocessing actions.  The applicant’s final  outprocessing
appointment was scheduled for 28 Jun 99 at 1400  hours,  following  an
1120 final appointment with the Housing Office.

According to the applicant, movers were supposed to pack and move  his
household goods from 23-25 Jun 99.  On  25  Jun,  the  moving  company
informed the applicant that they would not be able to  complete  their
packing by the end of that day.  In a formal complaint filed with  the
Transportation Squadron, the applicant stated that the packing of  his
household goods was completed on Saturday, 26 Jun 99 at 1930 hours.

On 28 Jun 99, the applicant asked the outbound assignments  office  to
change his port call date since the packers had taken  an  unscheduled
extra day and because  he  had  not  shipped  his  vehicle.   However,
establishing a port call outside a member’s DEROS month requires  unit
commander approval.  The unit commander refused to approve the request
on the grounds that the applicant had been given  plenty  of  time  to
accomplish all necessary outprocessing actions.  That  afternoon,  the
outbound assignments  office  informed  the  applicant  that  he  must
complete all outprocessing and depart his overseas  assignment  on  30
Jun 99.  His final outprocessing appointment was scheduled for 29  Jun
at 1330 hours.

The applicant contacted the outbound assignments section on     29 Jun
99 and requested that his final appointment be moved to 1600 hours, as
he had not yet shipped his vehicle.  The appointment  was  rescheduled
but the applicant called at 1600 hours to inform them that he  was  in
the process of shipping his vehicle and asked that his appointment  be
changed to 0800 on    30 Jun 99.  Outbound  assignments  informed  the
applicant’s Squadron Section Commander.  On 30 Jun  99  at  0810,  the
Squadron  Section  Commander  called  to  check  on  the   applicant’s
outprocessing.  He was informed that the applicant had not arrived and
had not called.

The Squadron Section Commander became concerned that the applicant was
trying to depart without completing his outprocessing.   He  contacted
the terminal at 0840 and learned that the applicant was there checking
in for his flight.  At approximately 0940 hours, the Section Commander
and First Sergeant arrived at the terminal and  paged  the  applicant.
After he did not respond, they called around to  try  and  locate  the
applicant.  At approximately 1025 hours, the applicant arrived at  the
terminal.  The applicant was taken to a room by the Section  Commander
and First Sergeant and read his rights  for  failure  to  process  the
squadron and base.  The  applicant  acknowledged  that  he  still  had
several  agencies  to  outprocess.   After  the  applicant  could  not
satisfactorily explain how he could complete his outprocessing in  the
time remaining before the flight, the Section Commander  involuntarily
extended  his  DEROS  to  allow  time  for   him   to   complete   the
outprocessing.  The applicant completed his outprocessing on 1 Jul 99.
 The applicant was subsequently punished by Article 15.

In regard to  the  applicant’s  contention  that  the  punishment  was
disproportionate  to  his  offense,  the  commander  noted  that   the
applicant was a senior noncommissioned officer (SNCO) who was  already
on the control roster for previous disciplinary  actions.   AFLSA/JAJM
provides a list of the previous actions received by the applicant.

The applicant provided no evidence  of  a  clear  error  or  injustice
related to  his  Article  15  action.   The  commander  and  appellate
authority considered all of the information he  has  provided  to  the
Board in 1999.  The commander’s determination that the  applicant  had
sufficient time to complete his outprocessing and  that  he  willfully
failed to do so is clearly supported by the evidence.  Her  imposition
of a one-stripe reduction in grade was a  permissible  punishment  and
also warranted in light of the applicant’s disciplinary record and his
actions surrounding the outprocessing.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
28 Mar 03 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  not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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 opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office 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.  We note the applicant’s argument that  he  had
sufficient leave balance to cover the additional time he  required  to
complete his outprocessing actions.  However, we do not  believe  that
he has presented sufficient evidence that the commander’s decision  to
deny  him  leave  and  require  that   he   complete   his   scheduled
outprocessing on  time  was  unjust.   In  fact,  if  the  applicant’s
outprocessing were delayed due to events  beyond  his  control,  there
would be no justification to charge  him  leave.   We  note  that  the
applicant had a total of 16 calendar days  to  complete  all  required
actions related to his outprocessing.   Although  the  moving  company
took an additional day to complete the packing of his household goods,
he has not provided  sufficient  evidence  to  show  that  this  delay
precluded his completion of all required actions  in  preparation  for
his port call of 30 Jun 99.  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  BC-2002-
03991 in Executive Session on 7 May 2003, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Dec 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 10 Mar 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Mar 03.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair