RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2005-03543
                                       INDEX CODE:  126.04
      xxxxxxxxxxxxx                     COUNSEL: NONE

      xxxxxxxxxxxx                           HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  22 MAY 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Article 15, UCMJ, action imposed on 18 May 2005,  be  removed  from  his
records.  By amendment at Exhibit E, applicant requests that  his  discharge
be upgraded.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On  18  May  2005,  he  was  administered  an  Article  15  for  having   an
unprofessional relationship.  The punishment was unjust due to his chain  of
command ignoring evidence provided by him  which  disproved  the  allegation
against him and by the primary witnesses’ statement that she was being  told
what to say to fit the case that was being fabricated against him.   He  has
taken this issue up his chain of command,  to  Space  Command,  and  to  the
Inspector General, which has gotten him no where.

In support of his application, he provides a personal statement,  twenty-two
attachments but  not  limited  to  a  copy  of  his  Record  of  Nonjudicial
Punishment Proceedings dated 31 Mar 05 and 18 May 05  and  a  memorandum  of
record from a computer  security  manager  identifying  inconsistencies  and
probable oversights in the case.  The applicant’s complete submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 October 1993  and  was
progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5).  On  15  August
2002, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Air Force to accept  a
commission.  On  16 August  2002,  the  applicant  received  his  commission
through Officer Training School and was appointed a second lieutenant.   The
following is a resume of the applicant's OPR profile:

      PERIOD ENDING                     OVERALL EVALUATION

        02 May 03                       TRAINING REPORT
        02 Mar 04                       TRAINING REPORT
        02 May 04       Meets Standards
        25 Feb 05                       Does Not Meet Standards


On 17 August 2003, the applicant  received  a  Letter  of  Admonishment  for
failing to inventory classified material before crew change.

On 6 January 2005, the applicant received  a  Letter  of  Reprimand  and  an
Unfavorable Information File was  created  for  operating  a  motor  vehicle
while under the influence of alcohol.

On 31 March 2005, the commander notified the  applicant  of  his  intent  to
recommend the applicant be punished under Article 15, UCMJ,  for  having  an
unprofessional relationship with an enlisted woman.  On  11  May  2005,  the
commander withdrew the Article 15 in order to correct the  language  in  the
specification.

On 11 May 2005, the applicant’s commander notified  him  of  his  intent  to
recommend the applicant be punished under Article 15,  UCMJ,  for  violating
Articles  92,  Unprofessional  relationship,  and   Article   133,   Conduct
Unbecoming an Officer.  On 16  May  2005,  after  consulting  with  military
defense counsel, the applicant waived his right to demand  trial  by  court-
martial  and  accepted  nonjudicial  punishment.   He  submitted  a  written
presentation.  On 18 May  2005,  having  considered  the  evidence  and  the
applicant’s response to the Article 15, the  imposing  authority  determined
the applicant did commit the offense charged.   Punishment  consisted  of  a
reprimand and forfeiture of  $1,800  pay  for  two  months.   The  applicant
appealed the punishment and requested the action be  suspended  or  reduced.
The applicant’s appeal was denied.

On 18 May 2005, the commander directed that an Unfavorable Information  File
(UIF) Action be filed in the member’s record.

On 11 July 2005, the  commander  directed  the  record  of  the  Article  15
punishment be filed in the applicant’s Officer Selection Record and  Officer
Command Selection Record.

On 12 August  2005,  the  applicant  voluntarily  submitted  a  request  for
resignation  instead  of   undergoing   further   administrative   discharge
proceedings.  On 14 November 2005, the Secretary of the Air  Force  accepted
his tender of resignation and directed that he receive  an  Under  Honorable
Conditions, General Discharge.  Subsequently, the applicant  was  discharged
under the provisions of AFI 36-3206  (Misconduct)  and  received  a  General
(Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.  He served 3 years, 3 months, and  1
day of commissioned service and 8 years, 9 months and 20  days  of  enlisted
service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to his  nonjudicial  punishment  are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air  Force
at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends the application be denied.  JAJM states the  applicant
makes  several  arguments  for  removing  the  Article  15;  which  includes
disputing the October time period for the incident,  establishing  he  could
not have driven the airman from the bar to his home because his car  was  in
the shop, challenging the airman’s description of his  residence,  providing
his phone records to show he did not call the airman  as  she  claimed,  and
characterizing  the  investigation  by  the  Security   Forces   Office   of
Investigation (SFOI) as  incomplete  and  resulting  in  untruthful  witness
statements.

JAJM states the applicant argues the incident could  not  have  happened  in
October 2004.  While the exact date in October is unknown, the  totality  of
the evidence supports the  commander’s  decision  to  punish  the  applicant
under Article 15.

JAJM advises the applicant provides evidence that his car was  in  the  shop
and, therefore, he could not have driven the airman to his  house  from  the
bar.  The evidence only substantiated that  the  car  was  in  the  shop  in
November and December, not in October.  JAJM advises  the  totality  of  the
evidence supports the applicant’s commander’s findings.

JAJM states that while the airman’s description of the house  and  room  may
not have been precise and accurate, this was the first  and  last  time  she
had been in the home, she was recalling the layout over  four  months  after
her visit, she was in the home for a relatively short  period  of  time,  it
was late at night, and the amount of lighting at the time is unknown.

JAJM states the applicant states SFOI is guilty of  “orchestrating”  witness
interviews, “corrupting and guiding witnesses’  stories,”  and  calling  the
witnesses back in to “change their statements.”  JAJM advises the  applicant
makes a valid point in questioning the investigative process;  nevertheless,
the consistency of the witnesses’ statements  regarding  the  facts  of  the
incident, other than the exact date, is compelling evidence the  applicant’s
commander considered.

It is JAJM’s opinion that the evidence presented is insufficient to  warrant
removing the Article 15 action and does not demonstrate an  equitable  basis
for relief.  The AFLSA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states this is a clear case of he said/she  said,  in  which  he
asks the Board to look at his Air Force  career  and  his  evaluations  up
until this alleged incident.  This is an attack on his integrity.  When he
has done wrong, he comes forward on his  own  accord,  regardless  of  the
punishment.  All statements taken were not supported by evidence given  by
the accuser or the initial complaining party.  The applicant’s rebuttal is
at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   After  reviewing  all  the   evidence
provided, the majority of the Board is not persuaded  that  the  nonjudicial
punishment, imposed on 18 May 2005 should be set aside.   Evidence  has  not
been presented which would lead the majority of the Board  to  believe  that
the  imposition  of  the  Article  15  on  the  applicant  was  improper  or
disproportionate.  In cases of this nature, the Board  is  not  inclined  to
disturb the decisions of commanding officers absence a showing of  abuse  of
that authority.  The majority of the Board has no such  showing  here.   The
evidence indicates that during  the  processing  of  this  Article  15,  the
applicant was offered every right to which entitled.  The  majority  of  the
Board notes the applicant’s argument regarding the  Security  Forces  Office
of Investigations (SFOI) “orchestrating” the  interviews  of  the  witnesses
resulting in untruthful witness statements.  Based on the  opinion  provided
by JAJM, although the investigative process  was  less  than  flawless,  the
consistency  of  the  witnesses’  statements  regarding  the  facts  of  the
incident, other than the exact date, is compelling evidence the  applicant’s
commander considered.  In view of this, the Board majority does not  believe
that an error occurred in the processing of the  contested  Article  15  and
defers to the opinion of legal authority regarding this issue.  By  electing
to resolve the unprofessional relationship charge in the nonjudicial  forum,
the applicant placed the responsibility to decide whether he  had  committed
the offense with his commander.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence
which shows to the majority’s satisfaction that the applicant’s  substantial
rights were violated, he was coerced to waive any  of  his  rights,  or  the
commander who imposed the nonjudicial punishment  abused  his  discretionary
authority, the Board majority concludes that no basis  exists  to  recommend
favorable action on the applicant’s  request.   Likewise,  since  the  Board
majority has determined favorable consideration of the  applicant’s  request
for removal of his Article 15 is  not  appropriate,  his  request  that  his
discharge be upgraded is not possible.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of  error  or  injustice
and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2005-03543
in Executive Session on 25 April 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
                 Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

Mr. Gallogly voted to grant the  applicant’s  request  but  elected  not  to
submit  a  minority  report.   The  following   documentary   evidence   was
considered:


     Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 15 Nov 05, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 26 Jan 06.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Feb 06.
     Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 20 Feb 06.




                                  MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                  Panel Chair