RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02323
            INDEX NUMBER:  126.00; 133.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Article 15 imposed on her on 10  Mar  03  be  set  aside  and  all
property,  rights,  and  privileges  of  which  she  was  deprived  be
restored, i.e., reinstatement to grade of master sergeant (MSgt) (E-7)
with original date of rank (DOR) and  payment  of  all  back  pay  and
allowances.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was punished under Article 15 for violation of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ), Article  132,  for  falsely  identifying  the
landlord on  a  residential  rental  agreement  and  only  identifying
herself as tenant when she was, in fact, one of the landlords and  for
violating Article 121, stealing, by false pretenses, the  property  of
the United States in the amount  of  $17,000.   Based  on  Comptroller
General Decision B-201478, OM, dated 7 Aug 81, she was allowed to rent
her own rental property.  The charge of larceny against her  makes  no
sense because she was reimbursed by the Air Force, after she was given
the Article 15, for the entire amount  claimed  for  perdiem  for  the
rental property.  She references a statement from the pay  officer  at
the base she was assigned she believes should be proof that she had no
reason to commit fraud.

During  the  investigation  conducted  on  her,  no  one  bothered  to
investigate the question of whether she was allowed to  rent  her  own
property.  Her Area Defense Counsel is the person  who  contacted  the
Defense  Accounting  and  Finance  Service  (DFAS)  and  obtained  the
Comptroller General decision.  However, he received the decision after
she had appealed the Article 15.  She  used  the  Comptroller  General
decision in a second appeal.  However, her appeal was denied  and  she
feels her commanders are continuing to punish her for charges she  has
proven to be innocent of.

The arrangement to rent her property was cheaper  for  the  government
than the charges they were previously paying.

She was kept on active  duty  an  additional  four  months  while  the
investigation of her was conducted.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of  statements
from the OSI investigation conducted on her,  the  Article  15,  lease
agreement, and other documents.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a Reservist who was recalled to active duty on 14 Dec
01 for a period not to exceed one year.  She was assigned to  Peterson
AFB, Colorado, the same state in which she  resided,  but  not  within
commuting distance.  While on duty  at  Peterson  AFB,  she  initially
stayed in contract quarters at a local hotel  and  was  paid  for  her
lodging costs through monthly vouchers.  On 14 Dec 01,  the  applicant
entered into a purported lease agreement with her husband  to  rent  a
home he owned.  In  Aug  02,  the  finance  office  learned  that  the
applicant owned the home she was leasing and  believing  the  vouchers
filed by her to be improper informed her commander.  Subsequently, the
Air  Force  Office  of  Special  Investigation  (OSI)   conducted   an
investigation from 7 Oct 02 to 20 Dec 02 into  whether  the  applicant
committed frauds against the United States Government.  The  applicant
was indefinitely  extended  by  the  special  court-martial  convening
authority for the purpose of possible disciplinary  action.   The  OSI
investigation disclosed indications of misconduct and the  report  was
forwarded to the commander for a report of action.  On 24 Feb 03,  the
applicant’s commander offered her proceedings under Article 15 of  the
UCMJ for alleged violations of  Article  132,  making  multiple  false
claims for payment between 14 Dec 01 and 16 Oct 02  and  Article  121,
stealing $17,000 from the government.  On 27 Feb 03, after  consulting
counsel, the applicant waived her right to trial by court-martial  and
accepted proceedings  under  Article  15.   She  submitted  a  written
presentation and made a personal appearance before her commander.   On
10 Mar 02, the commander determined the applicant  had  committed  the
alleged offenses.  Punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of
technical sergeant    (E-6).  The applicant  appealed  the  punishment
and on 3 May 03, the appeal authority denied her appeal.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  Despite  the
applicant’s protestations of  innocence,  they  perceive  no  material
doubt as to the applicant’s guilt.  The commander had  ample  evidence
to find the applicant committed the offenses charged.   The  applicant
raises as support for her position the payment of vouchers by the  Air
Force, a Comptroller  General  decision  from  1981,  and  advice  she
received from a civilian employee who apparently worked in the  budget
office at Peterson AFB  and  briefed  activated  reservists  on  their
allowances for perdiem and lodging costs.   They  find  none  of  this
evidence  persuasive.   Regarding  the  voucher  payments,  there   is
insufficient evidence of what post-discovery actions  the  pay  office
took or  did  not  take  in  terms  of  further  voucher  payments  or
recoupment.  Regardless, the applicant submitted  false  vouchers,  by
all appearances knowingly, and was paid money on that basis  to  which
she was not entitled.  Based on her circumstances, she may  have  been
entitled to claim certain lodging expenses, but this is not  what  she
submitted to the pay office.

The Comptroller General  decision  seems  to  authorize  some  monthly
expenses  in  circumstances  like  the  applicant’s.    However,   the
applicant never told the finance office that she owned the home, which
would have allowed them to properly  calculate  the  applicant’s  bona
fide expenses.

Although the applicant asserts she acted in good  faith,  it  was  her
commander’s responsibility to assess the strength of her explanations.
 The commander’s determinations were no unreasonable or clearly unfair
justifying a set aside.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 3
Sep 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 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 opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the
primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not  been  the
victim of an error or injustice.  We note  the  applicant’s  arguments
that the Comptroller General decision she references and  the  payment
of funds by the Air Force to her since she  received  the  Article  15
should exonerate her of the  charges  contained  in  the  Article  15.
However, we are not persuaded by the evidence of record  this  is  the
case.  We have unresolved questions regarding the lease agreement  she
signed and of what payments she  has  received  versus  what  she  has
actually  been  determined  to  be  entitled  to.   Should  additional
information be submitted shedding more light on this situation, we may
be willing to reconsider her request.  However, at this time, we  find
insufficient 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-
02323 in Executive Session on 19 October 2004, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
      Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member
      Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Jun 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 26 Aug 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Sep 04.




                                   RITA S. LOONEY
                                   Panel Chair