RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-04070
            INDEX CODE:  126.04
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His nonjudicial punishment under Article  15  of  the  Uniform  Code  of
Military Justice, imposed on 4 Jan 02, be set aside.

2.  In the alternative, applicant requests the  portion  of  his  punishment
reducing him in grade to E-4, be set aside and he be reinstated to E-5  with
his original date of rank.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

With the exception of one incident, he has had  an  impeccable  career.   He
has never made the slightest of mistakes.  Since arrival  at  his  new  duty
station his first sergeant and commander  have  worked  extensively  on  his
behalf.  Along with  the  statements  provided  in  his  support,  applicant
states that he has been truthful in  this  matter.   He  admits  he  made  a
mistake in personal judgment but in no way did he commit a crime.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal  statement  and
documentation  associated  with  his  AFBCMR  appeal,   email   communiqués,
character references.  His  complete  submission,  with  attachments  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on
12 Mar 93.  He was progressively promoted to the grade  of  staff  sergeant,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jun 99.

While a Military Training Instructor (MTI) assigned to Lackland AFB, TX  the
applicant developed a relationship with one of the  trainees.   The  trainee
and the applicant agree that he hugged and kissed her on several  occasions,
he admitted that he talked with her and wrote her  concerning  her  problems
in school and her personal life, he wrote her a note that read  "miss  you,"
after training she alleges he spoke with her every day  and  offered  her  a
key to his apartment, he wrote her seven or eight  letters  asking  her  for
pictures of herself, the applicant  and  trainee  took  a  picture  together
while lying on a bed, and he gave her  two  t-shirts.   The  applicant,  who
lived with his wife at the time, denied ever offering her a key, lying on  a
bed with her, and giving her t-shirts.

On 20 Dec 01, he was notified by his  commander  of  his  intent  to  impose
nonjudicial punishment under Article 15,  UCMJ.   The  specific  reason  for
this action was  his  failure  to  refrain  from  having  an  unprofessional
relationship with a trainee from his flight.  He was advised of  his  rights
in this matter and after consulting counsel; he waived his right  to  demand
trial by court martial, accepted Article  15  proceedings,  and  provided  a
written and oral presentation to the commander.  On 4 Jan 02, the  commander
found that he did commit one or more of the  offenses  alleged  and  imposed
punishment on him consisting of reduction in grade to  the  rank  of  senior
airman, a suspended forfeiture of $826 pay  per  month  for  2  months,  and
reprimand.  Applicant did not appeal the Article 15 punishment.

The applicant previously submitted an appeal to the ERAB and to  the  AFBCMR
requesting removal of his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing  27  Dec
02.  His appeals were denied.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial.  JAJM states he has provided  no  evidence  of
an error or injustice related to the nonjudicial punishment  action.   Based
on his own admissions, he formed a social  relationship  that  was  "perhaps
more intimate than it should have been."  Although  he  apparently  did  not
have a sexual relationship with  the  victim,  he  had  an  intimate  social
relationship  that  went  beyond  the  normal  and  acceptable   MTI/trainee
relationship.  The other allegations made by the victim regarding  the  key,
lying on the bed and giving her clothes speaks to why  social  and  intimate
relationships are prohibited  between  MTIs  and  trainees.   He  formed  an
unprofessional relationship  with  the  victim  and  was  punished  for  his
misconduct.   There  is  no  apparent  error  or  injustice  involving   the
nonjudicial punishment.  When evidence of an error is missing, it  is  clear
the BCMR process is not intended to simply second-guess the  appropriateness
of the judgments of field commanders.  Commanders have first-hand access  to
facts and unique appreciation for the needs  of  morale  and  discipline  in
their command.  While the applicant  may  have  been  exemplary  before  and
after these events, that status  alone  is  not  enough  to  circumvent  the
commander's first-hand knowledge and access to facts and witnesses  when  he
made the decisions regarding the  Article  15.   JAJM  notes  that  when  he
petitioned the AFBCMR to remove his EPR  closing  27  Feb  02,  he  did  not
complain about the  underlying  Article  15.   The  JAJM  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB defers to the recommendation of JAJM.  The DPPPWB evaluation  is
at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant provided a response addressing the comments  noted  in  the
Air Force evaluation.  His complete submission is appended at 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 that would warrant set aside of his  Article
15 action or restoration to  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant.   We  find  no
evidence  of  error  in  this  case  and  after  thoroughly  reviewing   the
documentation provided in support of his appeal, we are not  persuaded  that
he has suffered an injustice.  Evidence has not been presented  which  would
lead  us  to  believe  that  the  nonjudicial   punishment,   initiated   on
20 December 2001 and imposed on 4 January 2002 was improper.   In  cases  of
this nature, we are not inclined to  disturb  the  judgments  of  commanding
officers absent a strong showing of abuse of  discretionary  authority.   We
have no  such  showing  here.   The  evidence  indicates  that,  during  the
processing of this Article 15 action, the applicant was offered every  right
to which he was entitled.  He was represented by counsel, waived  his  right
to demand trial by court-martial, and submitted  matters  for  consideration
by the imposing commander.  After considering  the  matters  raised  by  the
applicant, the commander determined that the applicant  had  committed  "one
or more of the offenses alleged" and imposed punishment  on  the  applicant.
The applicant has not  provided  any  evidence  showing  that  the  imposing
commander abused his discretionary authority, that  his  substantial  rights
were violated during the processing of the Article 15  punishment,  or  that
the punishment exceeded the maximum  authorized  by  the  UCMJ.   Therefore,
based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis  upon  which  to
favorably consider 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-
04070 in Executive Session on 6 May 2004, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
      Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
      Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Dec 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 3 Mar 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 23 Mar 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Apr 04.



                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair