RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00487
            INDEX NUMBER:

      XXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXX    COUNSEL: None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The charge of failure to go, violation of Article 86 of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice, be removed from the Article 15 imposed on
him on 18 Aug 03.

Applicant requests that his reduction to  the  grade  of  technical
sergeant (E-6) imposed as punishment under Article 15 on 18 Aug  03
be set aside or suspended and he be returned to the grade of master
sergeant (E-7).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His first sergeant was biased and unfairly influenced  the  Article
15 proceedings against him.

The punishment he received was disproportionate to his  offense  of
unofficial use of his government credit card.  He paid the balances
in full each month and used the card for support of his family.  He
did not take anything from the government.

His Article 15 was not used  as  the  rehabilitative  tool  it  was
intended since he retired.

In support of his appeal,  applicant  attaches  a  summary  of  the
charges and  payments  he  made  on  his  government  credit  card,
character references, and copies of the leave log to show he was on
leave.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on  18  Sep  79.
He attained the grade of master sergeant (E-7) during  his  career.
On 5 Aug 03, his commander notified him  that  he  was  considering
punishing the applicant under  Article  15  of  the  UCMJ  for  the
alleged offenses of violation of Article  92,  failure  to  refrain
from using his government credit card for unofficial  purposes  and
violation of Article  86,  absent  without  leave.   The  applicant
accepted proceedings  under  Article  15  and  attached  a  written
presentation and requested to make a personal  appearance.   On  18
Aug 03, the commander determined that the applicant  had  committed
one or  more  of  the  alleged  offenses.   He  imposed  punishment
consisting of reduction to the grade technical sergeant  (E-6),  12
extra days duty, and  a  reprimand.   The  applicant  appealed  the
punishment on 25 Aug 03.  His appeal was denied on 8  Sep  03.   On
21 Sep 03, the applicant applied for  voluntary  retirement  to  be
effective 1 Dec 03.  His commander approved his request.  On 19 Nov
03, the Secretary of the Air  Force  Personnel  Council  determined
that the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in a  grade  higher
than technical sergeant (E-6) and would not be advanced  under  the
provisions of Section 8964, Title  19,  United  States  Code.   The
applicant was retired effective 1 Dec 03 in the grade of  technical
sergeant with 24 years, 2 months, and 13 days of service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial  of  the  applicant’s  requests.   The
applicant’s commander determined that the applicant was  AWOL  from
15-20 May 03 and that he misused his government credit  card.   The
applicant provided evidence that he received approval to extend his
leave beyond 13 May 03, but, other  than  his  own  assertions,  no
proof that he extended his leave through 20 May 03.

While the applicant contests the AWOL charge, he does  not  contest
his use of his government credit  card.   The  applicant  routinely
misused his government credit card over  90  times  in  a  10-month
period.

A review of the applicant’s submissions indicates that  he  is  not
inclined to  assume  any  responsibility  for  his  actions.   When
evidence of an error or injustice is missing, it is clear that  the
BCMR process is not intended simply to second-guess the actions  of
field commanders.  The applicant’s submissions are insufficient  to
warrant overturning the commander’s decision that the applicant was
AWOL or to set aside that part of  the  punishment  to  reduce  the
applicant in grade.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRRP recommends denial of  the  applicant’s  request  to  be
advanced in grade to  master  sergeant  (E-7).   At  the  time  the
applicant retired, he held the grade of master sergeant.   Although
the applicant held the grade of master sergeant,  SAFPC  determined
that the applicant would not be advanced to any higher  grade  when
his total service reaches 30 years.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations.  He  states  that
his  assertion  that  the  contested  Article  15  is   his   first
disciplinary action given in over 20 years was correct  as  charges
made against him in 1981 for  housebreaking  and  indecent  assault
were dismissed on appeal.  Applicant seeks to provide the basis  of
his request for correction of  his  records.   He  states  that  he
accepts responsibility for the  misuse  of  his  government  credit
card, but believes there is disparity in the actions taken in these
types of offenses.  He  cites  another  case  where  a  Senior  NCO
committed the same type of offense, but did not suffer the type  of
punishment he did.  Applicant further addresses the charge  against
him for failure to go and opines that it is totally without  merit.
Finally applicant discusses the role of his first sergeant  in  his
case and how she had disagreement with two  other  first  sergeants
who decided to write him character references.   Applicant  asserts
that his first sergeant failed to be objective.   Applicant  states
that his defense counsel reassured him that his punishment would be
a suspended reduction in rank due to the credit card  offense,  but
did not even factor in the charge of  failure  to  go  because  the
facts showed that it was without merit.

The applicant’s complete response is 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.   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.  Additionally, the  applicant  argues
that the punishment given him under Article 15 was too harsh given his
retirement and that his retirement also precluded the Article 15  from
being used as a  rehabilitative  tool.   However,  we  note  that  the
applicant signed his application for voluntary retirement  on  21  Sep
03, after he had already received the Article  15.   Thus  it  appears
that it was the applicant’s own decision to leave service when he did.
 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-2004-
00487 in Executive Session on 10 June 2004, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
      Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
      Mr. Christopher D. Carey, Member

The entire Board voted to deny applicant’s stated requests.   However,
Mr. Carey voted to reinstate the applicant’s grade at retirement,  but
did not desire to submit a minority report.  The following documentary
evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Nov 03, w/aches.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 12 Apr 04.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 19 Apr 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Apr 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 27 May 04.




                                   BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                   Panel Chair

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                                  FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
(AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  The Board found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended that his stated requests be denied.  However, a member of
the Board adopted a minority view that the applicant be provided a
measure of relief by restoring his grade upon his retirement.  The
majority of the Board disagreed.  I agree with the finding and
conclusion of the majority that such relief is not warranted.
Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the additional relief
be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency