RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                 DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02853
                                  INDEX CODE:  111.02
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX               COUNSEL:  NONE

  XXXXXXXXXX                      HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  18 March 2007


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The nonjudicial punishment she received on 30 June 2004  be  set  aside  and
removed  from  her  Officer  Selection  Record  (OSR)  and  Officer  Command
Selection Record; remove  the  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)  for  the
period 16 May 2004 to 16 August 2004 from  her  record;  change  the  “from”
date for the 17 August 2004 to 11 May 2005 report to begin 16 May  2004  and
change  the  appropriate  days  of  supervision  if  required;   approve   a
Meritorious Service Medal with fifth oak leaf  cluster  (MSM/5OLC)  for  her
duties while assigned as an Aerial Port Squadron  Commander;  reimburse  the
$93.33 of commander’s responsibility pay as if she had not been  relived  of
command; and submit a definitely promote (DP) recommendation  on  her  CY04A
(6 December 2004) (P0604A) Colonel Central Selection Board  (CSB)  Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF) for a Special Selection Board (SSB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was suffering from Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder  (ADHD)  and
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) at the time she  committed  the  crime
which led to her receiving nonjudicial punishment under Article 15,  Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  She has a letter from an Air  Force  board
certified  psychiatrist  stating  there  is  a  low  probability  that   she
committed the allegation because of criminal intent or compulsive  stealing.
 The psychiatrist goes on to say  there  is  a  high  probability  that  the
effects of deployment on the applicant’s concentration along with  her  pre-
existing ADHD resulted in her absent mindedly putting  the  perfume  in  her
bag without conscious thought.  In addition to taking medication  for  ADHD,
she also suffers from PTSD.  Factors contributing  to  her  stress  include:
the death of her husband in 2000 following a seven and a  half  year  battle
with cancer; being an aerial port  commander  when  the  roof  of  the  port
collapsed  in  2003;  her  four-month  deployment  to  Baghdad,  where   she
witnessed the tragic  results  of  a  car  bomb  explosion  that  killed  47
individuals; she is the single mother of two teenage  boys,  the  oldest  of
which required 19 months of institutional schooling from  2002  to  2004  to
deal with drug abuse; she has pre-cancerous skin  damage;  and  she  had  an
upcoming permanent change of station (PCS).

Her request to correct her records  is  not  about  flattering  her  with  a
promotion to colonel in the Air Force – it is about  getting  her  honorable
name back.  She made a mistake.  She did not commit this oversight with  the
intent to steal an item from the Base Exchange.

In support of her request, the applicant submits copies of military  records
pertaining to her nonjudicial punishment, OPRs, and awards and  decorations;
Leave and Earnings statements; various  newspaper  articles;  Base  Exchange
(BX)  receipts;  letters  of  support/commendation/appreciation;  and  a  BX
security video tape dated 19 May 2004 recording her theft.  The  applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The  applicant  is  currently  serving  on  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel with a date of rank of 1 September  1999.   The  Military
Personnel Database  (MilPDS)  indicates  she  has  a  Total  Active  Federal
Military Service Date and a Total Active Federal Commissioned  Service  Date
of 20 May 1983.

On 2 June  2004,  her  wing  commander  offered  the  applicant  nonjudicial
punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for theft of a $13.75 bottle  of  perfume
from the Army and  Air  Force  Exchange  Service  (AAFES),  a  violation  of
Article 121 of the UCMJ.  The theft occurred on 19 May  2004  at  Scott  Air
Force Base, Illinois while the applicant  was  in  a  temporary  duty  (TDY)
status.  The applicant was relieved from command on the  same  day.   On  18
June 2004,  the  applicant  accepted  nonjudicial  punishment,  submitted  a
written presentation in her behalf,  and  requested  a  personal  appearance
with the commander.  On 30 June  2004,  the  numbered  Air  Force  commander
found the applicant had committed  the  offense  and  punished  her  with  a
forfeiture of $1,700 pay per month for two months and a  reprimand.   On  23
July 2004, the applicant appealed the decision.   On  12  August  2004,  the
Deputy Commander, Air Mobility Command,  granted  the  appeal  in  part  and
reduce the forfeitures to $1,250 per month for two months.

The applicant received a referral OPR for the  period  16  May  2004  to  16
August  2004  with  ratings  of  “meet  standards”  in  all   areas   except
“professional qualities” and  “judgment  and  decisions”  which  were  rated
“does not meet standards.”

On  18  August  2004,  the  applicant  was  notified  that  a  copy  of  her
nonjudicial punishment would be placed in her Officer Selection  Record  and
Officer Command  Selection  Record.   On  3  November  2004,  her  commander
notified the applicant that he had completed a PRF for the CSB  recommending
that she not be selected for promotion at that time.  On  3  December  2004,
the applicant submitted a letter to the promotion board.  She has  two  non-
selections to the grade of colonel by the P0604A and P0605A colonel CSBs.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFSLA/JAJM recommends the applicant’s requests be denied.  JAJM  states  the
applicant argues  her  nonjudicial  punishment  is  unjust  because  she  is
innocent.  She has  submitted  statements  attesting  to  her  honesty.   In
addition, she has provided evidence of a high level of stress in  her  life,
but everyone with stress does not shop lift  from  the  BX.   The  applicant
presented her defense in an attempt to convince her commander  she  was  not
guilty.  Given the finding, her presentation obviously did not outweigh  the
bulk of the evidence against her in the  commander’s  mind.   The  commander
and then the appellate authority were in the best position to  evaluate  all
of the evidence and the credibility  of  the  applicant.   JAJM  is  of  the
opinion that since the evidence supports the finding of  guilty;  the  Board
should  defer  to  the  commander’s  discretion  and  not  set   aside   the
nonjudicial punishment.  The JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPPPR recommends disapproval of the applicant’s request  for  award  of
the MSM/5OLC.  DPPPR states the applicant contends  she  was  presented  the
MSM/5OLC for her PCS and it was later revoked;  however,  they  cannot  find
any evidence that the MSM was recommended  by  her  reporting  official  and
approved by the approval authority.  The DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPE recommends  the  Board  deny  the  applicant’s  requests.   DPPPE
states the applicant’s referral OPR does not contain any procedural  errors.
 Additionally, the applicant has not provided supporting evidence  to  prove
the report is inaccurate.  Based on the AFLSA/JAJM’s  recommendation,  DPPPE
recommends the referral OPR remain  in  the  applicant’s  permanent  record.
Since they are recommending the report remain in her  record,  there  is  no
reason to change the “from” date of her 11 May 2005 OPR.  In  addition,  due
to the recommendation of retaining the OPR, there  is  no  justification  to
grant a “DP” promotion recommendation on the P0604A PRF.

Based on AFSLA/JAJM’s, AFPC/DPPPR’s and  DPPPEP’s  recommendations  to  deny
relief sought, AFPC/DPPPO recommends the Board deny the applicant’s  request
for SSB consideration by the P0604A  board.   The  DPPPE  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant requests the Board to regard  her  unknown  medical  diagnosis
and her 23 years of otherwise exemplary service in  making  their  decision.
She feels to grant her request would be in the  best  interest  of  the  Air
Force.  She provides a copy of another  AFBCMR  case  that  she  feels  sets
precedence  for  granting  her  appeal.   The  applicant’s  rebuttal,   with
attachment, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES 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.   After  reviewing  all  the   evidence
provided, we are not persuaded that the nonjudicial punishment,  imposed  on
30 June 2004; or the referral OPR for the period  16  May  2004  through  16
August 2004, were improper.  We find no evidence of error in this  case  and
after thoroughly reviewing the documentation  provided  in  support  of  her
appeal, the Board does not believe the applicant has suffered an  injustice.
 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.  The Board does not believe there  is  such  showing  here.   The
evidence indicates that during  the  processing  of  this  Article  15,  the
applicant was offered every right to which she was entitled.  She  consulted
with counsel, and submitted written and  oral  matters  for  review  by  the
imposing commander and was given the opportunity to present  her  arguments.
The imposing commander determined that the applicant did commit the  offense
and imposed punishment.  The applicant appealed  the  punishment  and  after
considering  the  matters  raised  by  the  applicant  in  her  appeal,  the
commander denied the request.  There is nothing in  the  evidence  provided,
other than the  applicant’s  assertions,  which  would  lead  the  Board  to
believe that the actions by the imposing  commander  were  inappropriate  or
that he did not have access to all of the information necessary on which  to
base his decision.  The applicant has  not  provided  any  evidence  showing
that  the  imposing  commander  or  the  reviewing  authority  abused  their
discretionary authority, that her substantial rights  were  violated  during
the processing of  this  Article  15  punishment,  or  that  the  punishment
exceeded the maximum authorized by  the  UCMJ.   We  note  the  AFBCMR  Case
submitted by the applicant as an example  of  a  precedence  being  set  for
approval in her appeal.  However, unlike in the applicant’s case, the  panel
of the Board that recommended relief in the non-commissioned officer’s  case
was persuaded that  the  applicant’s  actions  for  which  he  received  the
Article 15 were the result of the applicant’s medical condition and  were  a
direct result and substantial causative factor for the  behavior  that  lead
to  his  nonjudicial  punishment.   Therefore,  in  the  absence   of   more
persuasive  evidence  to  indicate  that  the  degree  of  stress  she   was
undergoing at the time prevented her from recognizing right from  wrong  and
rendered her unable to adhere to the right, we agree  with  the  assessments
by the Air Force advisory opinions  regarding  the  issues  raised  in  this
application and finds no  evidence  of  error  or  injustice.   Accordingly,
based on the available evidence of record, the Board  finds  no  basis  upon
which to favorably consider the applicant’s requests.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in  Executive
Session on 18 May 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
                 Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member


The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-2005-02853
was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Sep 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 14 Oct 05.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 14 Dec 05.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 28 Mar 06.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Apr 06.
      Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 16 May 06, w/atchs.




                                  MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                                   Panel Chair