RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03432
            INDEX CODE:  107.00, 110.03,
                              126.00, 131.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  8 MAY 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  She be reinstated back to active duty, as a  recruiter,  with  all  back
pay and allowances.

2.  She be promoted to the grade of E-6.

3.  Her nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, be removed from her records.

4.  Corrections be made to her  DD  Form  214,  Certificate  of  Release  of
Discharge from Active Duty.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She  did  not  submit  the  AF  Form  31,   Airman's   Request   for   Early
Separation/Separation Based on Change in Service Obligation.   The  AF  Form
31 was rejected by the legal office and never processed.   It  was  rejected
because an E-5 was not eligible and would have to meet a  separation  board.
The AF Form 31 that was submitted in place of her original AF  Form  31  was
fraudulent.  The Article 15 action occurred on 22 May 00 and the AF Form  31
was signed on 12 Apr 00 and Lt Col K---'s letter was signed 27 Apr 00.   The
AF Form 31 she submitted was dated 10 Jul  00.   But  instead  the  original
form dated 12 Apr 00 that was rejected  was  used.   The  legal  office  was
aware of her Article 15 on 22 May 00 and would  not  have  approved  the  AF
Form 31 prior to the Article 15 action.  It stated her rank was E-4 and  was
dated after the Article 15 action.  Lt Col K--- fraudulently  submitted  the
form and a letter in retaliation for a removed Enlisted Performance  Report.
 She was ordered to complete the original AF Form 31 with an escort  because
she was wrongfully removed from Recruiting service and given an  Article  15
for not following orders.  The Article 15 action was later overturned.

In addition she was denied the option to sell back leave and instead had  to
take terminal leave.  She did not receive  her  final  pay  until  one  year
later.  She was denied a separation  physical  because  she  was  forced  to
separate prior to her appointment.  Her DD Form 214 reflects  her  AFSC  was
3P051 instead of 3P071, she did not have a reserve  obligation  even  though
she had 3 1/2 years left on her enlistment, her authorized decorations  were
not correct, and her Associates degree and other schools were not included.

In support of her request, applicant provided numerous personal  statements,
AF  Form  31  with  attachments,  discharge  documents,  and   documentation
associated with her approved DFAS  claim.   Her  complete  submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  20
May 86.  She was progressively promoted to  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank  of  1  Jan  91.
18 Sep 92, she requested voluntary  separation  from  the  Air  Force.   Her
request was approved and she was voluntarily released from active  duty  and
transferred to the Air Force Reserves, on 20 Nov 92.  She served 6 years,  6
months, and 1 day on active duty.  Her Reserve Obligation  Termination  Date
was 19 May 94.  During that  period  of  active  service  she  served  as  a
Security Specialist and a Recruiter.  She was discharged from the Air  Force
Reserves on 5 Mar 96 and enlisted in the Air Force Reserves again on 30  Sep
96.  She was ordered to extended active duty  11  Jan  00.   Her  enlistment
agreement specified that she was retraining into  the  Recruiter  Air  Force
Specialty (AFS) and further contained the statement "If I fail  to  complete
the required training, I have voided this agreement in regard to  Air  Force
specialty and assignment and will either be reclassified  into  another  job
based on the needs  of  the  Air  Force,  or  separated."   On  12  Apr  00,
applicant submitted a request for separation from the Air Force.  The  basis
for that request was that her current enlistment  had  been  voided  because
she was released from Recruiter training for unsuitability reasons.   On  25
Apr 00, her unit commander recommend approval of her request and on  27  Apr
00,  the  discharge  authority  recommended  approval.   Her   request   was
forwarded to AFPC for processing.

On 10 May 00, the applicant was notified by her commander of his  intent  to
recommend nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the  UCMJ  for  failure
to go to her appointed place of duty on 2 May 00, and for  failure  to  obey
an order on 2 May 00 and on or about 5 May  00.   She  was  advised  of  her
rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of  the  notification  on  18
May 00.  After consulting counsel, the applicant waived her right to  demand
trial by court-martial, accepted Article  15  proceedings,  and  provided  a
written presentation to her commander.  On 22 May  00,  after  consideration
of all the facts, her commander determined that she committed  one  or  more
of the offenses alleged and imposed punishment on her.  She was  reduced  to
the grade of senior airman with a date of rank of 22 May 00.  The  applicant
appealed her punishment to 37 TRG/CC.  Her appeal was denied.  On 8 Dec  00,
the succedent commander mitigated the  reduction  to  the  grade  of  senior
airman to a reprimand based on an IG opinion that the  order  given  to  the
applicant was unlawful.

AFPC/DPPRS  approved  her  request  for  discharge  and  she  was  honorably
discharged on 31 Jul 00.  During that period she  served  6  months  and  20
days on active duty.

In a  previous  application,  applicant  requested  she  be  placed  in  the
position as a Recruiter and she be  reimbursed  for  lost  time,  wages  and
rank.  Her  request  along  with  numerous  reconsideration  requests,  were
denied by the Board.  For an  accounting  of  the  facts  and  circumstances
surrounding her previous requests and the rationale of the previous  Board's
decisions, please see the Records of Proceedings at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends partial relief.  JAJM is not convinced  the  order  by
Lt Col K--- not to complain to others without first going through him was  a
valid order that  the  applicant  could  be  punished  for  violating.   The
successor commander tried to remedy the issue by  mitigating  the  reduction
to a reprimand.  However, the mitigation is void because the  applicant  was
no longer a member of the service when his action was taken and  he  had  no
authority to alter her records.  Secondly, mitigation  is  appropriate  when
the offender's later good conduct merits a reduction in  the  punishment  or
when it is determined the punishment was disproportionate.   In  this  case,
it was found she did not commit the offense.  The appropriate  action  would
have been to set aside the specification about the failure to obey a  lawful
order.  There is no evidence whether the failure  to  go  specification  was
related to the unlawful order or any of the  circumstances  surrounding  the
failure-to-go that would allow an opinion as to the validity of the  finding
that she committed the offense.  The attempted mitigation  action  does  not
mention the failure-to-go speculation.  If the two were  related,  logically
both would have been mentioned.  The JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states based on  the  documentation  in
the master personnel records she  was  eliminated  from  Recruiter  Training
Course for unsuitability.   Her  enlistment  contract  stated  that  if  she
failed to complete the training she voided the agreement and  she  would  be
reclassified into another Air Force Specialty (AFS).  She  was  offered  the
opportunity to be reclassified and she voluntarily submitted an  application
to be separated from the Air Force.  The discharge was consistent  with  the
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and  was
within the discretion of the discharge authority.

DPPRS states the applicant has no Reserve obligation based on the fact  that
she  was   discharged   under   the   provisions   of   AFI   36-3208,   for
miscellaneous/general reasons.  There is no  documentation  in  her  records
indicating she was ever upgraded to the seven-skill  level  (3P071)  as  her
primary AFS.  There is no documentation she completed  an  Associate  degree
with  the  Community  College  or  other  schools  completed.    The   DPPRS
evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial.  DPPPWB states based on her date of  rank  to
staff sergeant of 11 Jan 00, the first time she  would  have  been  eligible
for promotion consideration to technical sergeant was cycle 02E6.   However,
she received an Article  15  reduction  to  senior  airman  and  elected  to
separate prior to the 02E6 cycle.  If reinstated, she would be eligible  for
promotion  consideration  beginning  with  the  02E6   cycle.    The   DPPWB
evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  on  25
Feb 05 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this  office
has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice that would warrant some  corrective  action.
The applicant requests that her nonjudicial punishment be removed  from  her
records.  It appears that the Article 15 punishment was  rendered  in  part,
based upon allegations that she  disobeyed  a  lawful  order.  It  has  been
subsequently determined that the order she was accused  of  disobeying,  was
in  fact  an  unlawful  order.   The  Air   Force   has   recommended   that
specification be set aside and the remaining specification of failure to  go
remain intact.  However, since we believe it is unlikely that the  applicant
would  have  received  Article  15  punishment  for  the   failure   to   go
specification, it is our opinion that the entire Article  15  action  should
be removed from her records and she  be  restored  to  the  grade  of  staff
sergeant.  Accordingly, we recommend her records be corrected to the  extent
indicated below.

4.  Notwithstanding the above, we find  insufficient  relevant  evidence  to
demonstrate the  existence  of  error  or  injustice  with  respect  to  her
remaining requests.  Applicant requests she be reinstated  to  active  duty,
as a Recruiter, with back pay and allowances.  However, it appears that  the
applicant's  separation  was  voluntary  in  nature.   Other  than  her  own
uncorroborated assertions, we find no evidence that  the  actions  taken  to
affect her separation were improper,  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the
governing regulations, or that she  was  denied  rights  to  which  she  was
entitled.  We note that her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code is  "1J"  and
she is eligible to reenlist in the Air Force if she so  desires.   Applicant
has provided no evidence to show that she met the requirements for  or  that
she was ever promoted to the grade of E-6, therefore we find that  favorable
consideration of her request for promotion to that grade is  not  warranted.
With respect to her request for corrections to her DD  Form  214,  we  agree
with the Air Force office of primary responsibility that with the  exception
of her authorized decorations, which are administrative  in  nature  and  we
have been advised will be administratively corrected, evidence has not  been
presented to show her DD Form 214 is error.  Therefore, in  the  absence  of
evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to  recommend
favorable consideration of the above actions.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

a.  The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, initiated on  10  May
2000 and imposed on 22  May  2000,  be  set  aside  and  expunged  from  her
records, and all rights, privileges and property of which she may have  been
deprived be restored.

b.  On 31 Jul 00, she  was  honorably  discharged  in  the  grade  of  staff
sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2004-
03432 in Executive Session on 9 Jun 05, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
      Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Oct 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 28 Jan 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 Feb 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 15 Feb 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated  25 Feb 05.




                             RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                             Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2004-03432




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

            a.  The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ,
initiated on 10 May 2000 and imposed on 22 May 2000, be, and hereby is, set
aside and expunged from her records, and all rights, privileges and
property of which she may have been deprived be restored.

            b.  On 31 July 2000, she was honorably discharged in the grade
of staff sergeant.






                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency