RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00760
            INDEX CODE:  126.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her rank of E-6 be restored.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Although she deserved punishment,  the  punishment  she  received  was
severe and unjust.  Her behavior was completely unacceptable  and  she
makes no excuses for it; however,  she  is  battling  the  disease  of
alcoholism.  Because of this disease, her life got out of control.

Her commander treated her differently than another similarly  situated
male who received an Article 15.

Her Financial Services Officer (FSO) told her entire section that  she
had a substance abuse problem, in violation of AFI 33-332.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided personal  statements,
supportive statements, and other documents associated with the  matter
under review.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
senior airman, with a date of rank of 1 Jul 02.  She has  a  projected
promotion to the grade of staff sergeant.  Her  Total  Active  Federal
Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 3 Jun 86.

On 3 Jun 02, the  applicant’s  commander  notified  her  that  he  was
considering whether she should be punished under Article  15,  Uniform
Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ)  based  on  allegations  that  the
applicant was, on or about 29 May 02, found drunk  while  on  duty  as
noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC) of document processing.  The
applicant was advised of her rights in the matter.   After  consulting
military legal counsel, the applicant waived her right to demand trial
by court-martial, accepted the nonjudicial proceedings  under  Article
15, and submitted written comments for review.  On  7  Jun  02,  after
considering the matters presented  by  the  applicant,  the  commander
found that the applicant had committed the alleged offense and imposed
punishment.  The applicant was reduced from  the  grade  of  technical
sergeant to staff sergeant.  The applicant appealed the punishment but
it was denied  by  the  appellate  authority.   On  21 Jun  02,  legal
authority found that the nonjudicial proceedings under Article 15 were
legally sufficient.

On 25 Jun 02, the applicant’s  commander  notified  her  that  he  was
considering whether she should be punished under Article  15,  Uniform
Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ)  based  on  allegations  that  the
applicant was, on or about 20 Jun 02, found drunk on duty  at  the  --
d Comptroller Squadron.  The applicant was advised of  her  rights  in
the matter.  After consulting military legal  counsel,  the  applicant
waived her right  to  demand  trial  by  court-martial,  accepted  the
nonjudicial  proceedings  under  Article  15,  and  submitted  written
comments for review.  On 1  Jul  02,  after  considering  the  matters
presented by the applicant, the commander found that the applicant had
committed the alleged offense and imposed punishment.   The  applicant
was reduced from the grade of staff sergeant to  senior  airman.   The
applicant appealed the punishment but it was denied by  the  appellate
authority.  On 12 Jul 02, legal authority found that  the  nonjudicial
proceedings under Article 15 were legally sufficient.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommended denial indicating that the commander was and is
in the best position to evaluate the information, consider  the  facts
and  circumstances,  consider  the  applicant's  prior   and   current
behavior, and determine the most appropriate and effective  course  of
action.  The commander had the tools to mitigate  the  punishments  he
imposed and they were not  employed.   The  commander  still  has  the
ability to set aside the action,  should  that  be  appropriate.   The
commander, however, is the only authority with the requisite knowledge
and  perspective  to  best  utilize  those  tools  constructively  and
appropriately.  For the AFBCMR  to  act  without  that  knowledge  and
perspective could very well be counterproductive.

In AFLSA/JAJM's view, a set aside should  only  be  granted  when  the
evidence demonstrates an error  or  a  clear  injustice.   Failing  or
refusing to remember drinking alcohol is not a  defense  to  drunk  on
duty.   The  basis  of  the  applicant's  request   for   relief   was
insufficient to warrant setting aside the Article 15 actions, 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 actions.

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

AFMOA/SGZF stated that the records and documents  submitted  indicated
that the applicant received appropriate treatment for  her  addiction.
However, AFI 44-121 states that the treatment team  will  meet  within
ten (10) days of a patient's completion of  an  intensive  outpatient,
partial day  treatment,  or  inpatient  treatment  program  to  review
progress and recommend a  course  of  treatment  for  aftercare.   The
applicant  completed  the  Intensive  Short  Term  Outpatient  Program
(ISTOP) in Jul 02.  According to the copies  of  the  records  in  the
package, the initial treatment team meeting did not occur until 17 Jan
03, which did not meet the guidance in the AFI 44-121.  However, there
was no evidence to suggest that the treatment the  applicant  received
did not meet the standards of care.

A complete copy of the AFMOA/SGZF evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ USAF/JAA recommended denial indicating that even assuming the FSO's
statement was release of Privacy Act protected  information  contained
in an Air Force official system of records,  it  did  not  affect  the
appropriateness  and  legitimacy  of   the   applicant's   nonjudicial
punishment  actions  for  her  misconduct.   If  an  unauthorized  and
inappropriate  release  of  Privacy  Act  protected  information   was
substantiated, the offender may be subjected  to  Air  Force  punitive
action.  The aggrieved individual's remedy is to  file  a  civil  suit
against the Air Force for failing to comply with the Privacy  Act  and
the responsible offender may be found  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and
fined.  The remedy the applicant seeks--restoration of rank to E-6, is
not a remedy for an alleged Privacy Act violation.

In HQ USAF/JAA's opinion, the applicant has failed to demonstrate  the
existence of any error or presented facts and circumstances supporting
an injustice warranting a correction of her military records.

A complete copy of the HQ USAF/JAA evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPPPWB indicated that it  is  their  opinion  that  the  demotion
action taken against the applicant was procedurally correct and  there
was no evidence that there were any irregularities or  that  the  case
was mishandled.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory  opinions  and  furnished  a  detailed
response.  She indicated that she was not proud of her actions,  knows
that her actions were wrong, and that she  deserved  to  be  punished.
She  has  paid  for  her  actions  continuously  subsequent   to   the
nonjudicial punishments.  She just does not understand how one of  her
peers was allowed to get help without any disciplinary action and  her
punishments were so harsh.  However, the  evidence  she  has  gathered
leads her to believe that if she had  been  a  male,  she  would  have
retained her rank or been promoted.  She prays that the Board will see
by the evidence that she has provided that her rights were violated.

Applicant's  complete  response,  with  attachments,  is  attached  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  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  her  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find  the  applicant’s  assertions  or  the
documentation  presented  in  support  of  her  appeal  sufficient  to
persuade us that corrective action  is  warranted.   The  evidence  of
record indicates that the applicant's commander  determined  that  she
had committed the alleged offenses  of  being  drunk  while  on  duty,
resulting in her nonjudicial punishments under Article 15 that reduced
her in rank.  We also note that her appeal  of  the  punishments  were
denied by the appellate authority.  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.   In  view
of the foregoing, and in the absence  of  clear-cut  evidence  to  the
contrary, we conclude that the applicant has  failed  to  sustain  her
burden of establishing that she has suffered either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  Accordingly, 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-00760 in Executive Session on 7 Oct 03, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
      Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Feb 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 4 Apr 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFMOA/SGZF, dated 16 May 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ USAF/JAA, dated 14 Jul 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 28 Jul 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Aug 03.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, applicant, dated 18 Aug 03, w/atchs.




                                   ROBERT S. BOYD
                                   Panel Chair