RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03250
            INDEX NUMBER:  126.00; 111.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX      COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Article 15 imposed on her on 15 Mar 93 be set aside and all rights
and privileges of which she was deprived be restored.

The referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered on her for the
period 16 Feb 92 through 15 Feb 93 be  voided  and  removed  from  her
record.

Her noncommissioned officer (NCO) status be reinstated.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In a four-page statement, with  attachments,  applicant  recounts  the
actions and sequence of events that led to her receiving an Article 15
and referral EPR.

While on active duty at her last duty assignment she endured  constant
harassment and unfair, discriminatory treatment.   The  state  of  her
physical and mental condition today is a  direct  consequence  of  the
harassment of her superiors in the Air Force.

She was raped on 20 Dec  92  and,  as  a  result,  her  mental  health
declined.  With the help of her immediate supervisor, she  made  every
effort  to  continue  being  a   loyal,   conscientious,   independent
performer.  Her immediate supervisor informed her that he thought  she
was being singled out, discriminated against,  and  treated  unfairly.
She was eventually given a bad performance  rating  by  her  immediate
rater’s supervisor, although she and her immediate supervisor provided
senior management proof of her achievements.

On 5 Mar 93, she was offered  punishment  under  Article  15  for  not
taking the trash  out,  although  she  and  her  immediate  supervisor
explained the mental stress she was under.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 11 Dec 84.  On 5
Mar 93, while the applicant was serving in the grade of  sergeant  (E-
4), her squadron commander notified her he was considering whether she
should be punished under Article 15 of the Uniform  Code  of  Military
Justice (UCMJ) for negligent failure to perform her  assigned  duties.
On 12 Mar 93, the applicant accepted Article 15 proceedings, consulted
a lawyer, and submitted a written presentation in her behalf.   On  15
Mar 93, the commander determined that the applicant had committed  the
alleged offense.  He imposed  punishment  consisting  of  a  six-month
suspended reduction to the grade of airman first class.  The applicant
did not appeal.  On 19 Apr  93,  the  applicant’s  squadron  commander
notified her that he was nonrecommending  her  for  promotion  to  the
grade of staff sergeant for the following reasons:

        a.  On 6 Aug 92, she received a letter of reprimand (LOR)  for
failure to properly document a leave, resulting in  the  establishment
of an unfavorable information file (UIF) and placement on the  control
roster.

        b.  On 26 Feb 93, she was counseled for failing to perform  an
office detail she was responsible for scheduling.

        c.  On 15 Mar 93,  she  received  the  Article  15  referenced
above.

On 21 Jun 93, the applicant’s squadron commander notified her that  he
was considering whether to vacate the suspended punishment imposed  on
15 Mar 93 for the alleged offenses of dereliction of duty and  failure
to obey a  lawful  general  regulation.   The  applicant  consulted  a
lawyer, requested a  personal  appearance,  and  submitted  a  written
presentation.  On  30 Jun 93, the squadron commander  determined  that
the applicant committed the alleged offenses and vacated the suspended
punishment.  The applicant was reduced to the grade  of  airman  first
class effective 15 Mar 93.

A summary of the  applicant’s  EPRs  and  Airman  Performance  Reports
(APRs) follows:

      Closeout Date                     Overall Rating

    28 Jun 85                           8
    27 Mar 86                           8
    27 Mar 87                           9
    29 Jan 88                           9
    29 Jan 89                           9
   *15 Feb 90                           4
    15 Feb 91                           4
    15 Feb 92                           3
  **15 Feb 93                           2

*  Start of ratings under the EPR system (maximum rating is 5)
** Contested referral report.

The applicant requested voluntary separation under AFR 39-10  and  was
discharged 10 Sep 93.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s requests.

The applicant contends that the Article 15 she received is the  result
of racial animus and that she is the victim  of  disparate  treatment.
She also alleges that she was the victim of  sexual  harassment  by  a
senior noncommissioned officer (NCO), an African American male.

The applicant traces all of her problems in the Air Force to    20 Dec
92 after a black man allegedly raped her after her car broke down in a
bad section of town where she was assigned.   The  applicant  did  not
call police, did not go directly to the hospital,  but  went  directly
home.  She reported the attack several days later to the hospital, but
could offer no specifics.  The applicant fails to mention the  various
administrative  actions  taken  against  her  prior  to  20  Dec   92.
Noteworthy is the reason why the Article 15 punishment imposed  on  15
Mar 93 was vacated.  The applicant was caught watching  TV  and  doing
her laundry instead of the detail she  was  assigned.   The  applicant
also showed a general disdain  for  senior  personnel  and  Air  Force
regulations as  exemplified  by  her  decision  to  wear  unauthorized
hosiery after having been previously warned.

Unless it is shown that a commander’s findings were  either  arbitrary
or capricious, they should not be  disturbed.   When  evidence  of  an
error or injustice is missing, it is clear that the  BCMR  process  is
not  intended  to  simply  second-guess  the  appropriateness  of  the
judgment of field commanders.  The commander in this case weighed  all
the evidence and made his decision.   The  basis  of  the  applicant’s
request for relief  is  insufficient  to  warrant  setting  aside  the
Article 15 action.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPE recommends that the applicant’s request  to  void  her  EPR
closing 15 Feb 93 be denied.   The  applicant’s  contention  that  the
referral action taken against her was the result of  unfair  treatment
has not been substantiated.   She  has  not  provided  any  supporting
documentation proving that the comments  made  in  her  EPR  were  not
valid.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPWB evaluated the impact of the Article 15 and referral EPR on
the applicant’s promotion opportunity.  They note that the applicant’s
original date of rank as a sergeant (E-4) was 11 Dec 87 and  that  the
referral EPR was never used in the promotion process.  They  defer  to
the  recommendations  of  AFLSA/JAJM  and  AFPC/DPPPE  regarding   the
applicant’s requests.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
12 Mar 04 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 opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices 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.  The applicant has made some  serious
and disturbing allegations.  However, insufficient evidence  has  been
presented to substantiate them.  Additionally, while there are several
character and support letters provided, none of them appear to be from
senior members of the rating chain.   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-2003-
03250 in Executive Session on 18 May 2004, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
      Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
      Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Aug 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 14 Jan 04.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 27 Feb 04.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 Mar 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Mar 04.




                                   BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                   Panel Chair