RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01763
            INDEX CODES:  100.06, 131.06

            COUNSEL:  NONE


            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her rank be changed from airman basic to airman first class.

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4E be changed  to  one  that
would allow her to reenter the military.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She only received corrective action once in her military career.

The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 she received was her first
one.

She was never in any previous trouble nor had any prior  action  taken
against her while she was in the military.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided copies of the Article
15 and her separation document.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24  Jul  96  for  a
period of six years in the grade of airman first class.  She  received
two Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) in which she received  overall
ratings of 4 and 5 (1-5 (Highest)).

On 15 May 00, 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 did, on or about 26 Apr 00, with intent to deceive,  make  a
false official statement to SSgt C--- J--- L--- that the last time she
saw a camera it was with SSgt D--- W--- in outbound freight  and  that
she did not know the camera’s whereabouts; and, that she did,  between
on or about 25 Apr 00 and on or  about  10 May  00,  steal  a  digital
camera, which was military property valued at $699.00.  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  22  May   00,   after
considering the matters presented  by  the  applicant,  the  commander
found that the  applicant  had  committed  the  offenses  alleged  and
imposed punishment.  The applicant  was  reduced  from  the  grade  of
senior airman to airman basic,  ordered  to  forfeit  350.00  for  two
months, and reprimanded.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.
On 16 Jun 00, legal authority found that the  nonjudicial  proceedings
under Article 15 were legally sufficient.

On 23 Jul 00, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI
36-3208 (Completion of  Required  Active  Service)  and  furnished  an
honorable discharge.  She was  credited  with  four  years  of  active
service.  She was assigned an RE code of 4E.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommended  denial  noting  that  the  applicant  did  not
contest the merits of the Article 15, rather she based her argument on
the issue that the Article 15 was the only one in  her  record,  which
did not justify the reduction in rank, or the denial of  reentry  into
the military.  The applicant was found  to  have  committed  two  very
serious offenses under the Uniform Code of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ),
theft of government property, and  the  making  of  a  false  official
statement.  According to AFLSA/JAJM, the commander clearly acted  well
within his authority in reducing the applicant’s rank.   A  set  aside
should only be granted when the evidence demonstrates an  error  or  a
clear injustice.  In AFLSA/JAJM’s view, the basis of  the  applicant’s
request for relief  is  insufficient  to  warrant  setting  aside  the
Article 15, and does no demonstrate an  equitable  basis  for  relief.
The applicant has provided no evidence of a clear error  or  injustice
related to the nonjudicial punishment action.

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

AFPC/DPPPWB recommended denial indicating that, in their opinion,  the
demotion action taken against the applicant was  procedurally  correct
and there was no evidence of any irregularities or that the  case  was
mishandled.  In their view, the applicant’s request to change her rank
to airman first class is without merit.

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

AFPC/DPPAE indicated that the applicant’s RE  code  of  4E  (Grade  is
airman first class or below and airman completed 31 or more months, if
a first-term airman; or, grade is airman  first  class  or  below  and
airman is a second-term or career airman) is correct.  In their  view,
no evidence was presented to support changing the RE code.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  21
Nov 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.   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 the Air Force  offices  of  primary  responsibility.   The
evidence of record reflects that the  applicant  received  nonjudicial
punishment under Article 15 based on  allegations  that  she  stole  a
digital camera, which was military property, and made a false official
statement about the matter.  She was  reduced  in  grade  from  senior
airman to airman basic.  No evidence has been  presented  which  would
lead us to believe that the imposed punishment was based on  erroneous
information  or  was  an  abuse  of  discretionary  authority.   After
completing her  first  full-term  of  service,  she  was  subsequently
separated from the Air Force in the grade of airman  basic  with  four
years of active service.  As a result, she was assigned an RE code  of
4E (grade is airman first class or below and airman  completed  31  or
more months, if a first-term airman).  Therefore, it appears that  the
applicant’s  RE code  was  appropriately  assigned,  and  we  find  no
evidence that the assigned RE code was  in  error.   In  view  of  the
foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude
that no basis exists to act favorably on the applicant’s  requests  to
change her rank and her RE code.  However, we  believe  it  should  be
pointed out to the applicant that her RE code of 4E is one that, based
on the needs of the respective military service, can be waived by  the
enlistment authorities.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2003-01763 in Executive Session on 13 Jan 04, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member
      Mr. Christopher Carey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 9 Jul 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 6 Aug 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 1 Oct 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 03.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair