RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01431
            INDEX CODE:
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 NOVEMBER 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her rank of noncommissioned officer (NCO) status (Sgt/E-4) be reinstated.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She received a reduction in her pay grade  from  E-4  to  an  E-1  within  a
matter of two  weeks.  Only  after  she  had  submitted  her  packet  for  a
Dependent Hardship Discharge did her first  sergeant  begin  a  campaign  to
ruin her 5-year career. She had been on a  mission  for  a  year  to  remove
certain personnel who she did not feel belonged in  the  military--primarily
single parents or mothers’  with  sick  children.   Please  note  she  is  a
survivor of abuse and just got her nerve back to stand up for  herself  with
fear.

In support of her request, applicant provided a  copy  of  her  request  for
military records.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 20 May 1985 for a period of  four
years.  She was promoted to the grade of Sgt (E-4) on 20 May 1988.

On 6 March 1990, the applicant’s supervisor recommended her  NCO  status  be
vacated because of her failure to maintain standards required by an NCO  and
failure to perform assigned duties.

On 8 March 1990, the applicant’s commander concurred  and  vacated  her  NCO
status. She acknowledged the commander’s intent on       8  March  1990  and
later failed to render her intent to appeal the commander’s decision  within
three days.

On 9 March 1990, the  applicant’s  commander  considered  Article  15,  UCMJ
punishment due to dereliction in performance of her assigned duties from  17
April 1989 to 11 January 1990. After consulting with counsel, the  applicant
accepted Article 15, UCMJ punishment and was reduced from the  rank  of  SrA
(E-4) to the grade of airman (E-2) with a date of rank of 15 March 1990.

The applicant’s request for early discharge was  subsequently  approved  and
she was discharged with an honorable discharge on   15  April  1990  in  the
grade of amn (E-2) after serving 4 years, 10 months and  26  days  of  total
active federal service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial. The applicant’s commander was  acting  within
his authority when he imposed punishment under  Article  15.  The  applicant
also failed to prove an error or injustice occurred.

AFPC/DPPPWB's complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAE recommends  denial.  The  applicant’s  commander  acting  on  the
recommendation of the supervisor and within her authority decided to  concur
with the vacation of her NCO status. The applicant was fully aware  of  this
action and failed to render her intent to appeal. In addition,  no  evidence
was found to support her allegation that someone had campaigned to ruin  her
career. Outlined in the Article  15,  the  applicant  was  derelict  in  her
duties on diverse occasions between the period of 17 April  1989  to  on  or
about 11 January 1990. This window is clearly outside  and  contradicts  the
applicant’s claim that her demotion  from  E-4  began  only  after  she  had
submitted an application for early separation.

AFPC/DPPAE's complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/JA recommends denial. In this case, there  were  no  irregularities  in
processing the applicant’s Article 15.  After  receiving  notification  that
her commander was considering  taking  nonjudicial  punishment  action,  the
applicant consulted with a lawyer and waived her right to  trial  by  court-
martial. She also indicated her desire for a public hearing and  provided  a
written  presentation  for  her   commander’s   consideration.   After   the
presentation was complete, the applicant’s commander  found  her  guilty  of
dereliction of duty in that she willfully failed to process leave  forms  to
the Finance Office and to correct discrepancies between the  Daily  Register
of Transactions from the Finance  Office  and  the  Transportation  Squadron
leave log. The punishment imposed was reduction in rank from  senior  airman
(SrA) to amn (E-2). The applicant elected not to appeal.


AFPC/JA's complete evaluation is at Exhibit E

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated she  is  asking  for
the reinstatement of  the  NCO  status  for  no  other  purpose  other  than
maintaining some form of pride and respect for  the  time  she  served  this
country in the Air Force. To the best of her knowledge,  she  would  receive
no additional benefits as a result of this reinstatement. She  requests  her
records be amended to reinstate the E-4 (Sgt) grade.

Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice warranting partial relief.  While  we  do
not find  that  the  evidence  presented  is  sufficient  to  exonerate  the
applicant  of  any  guilt  with  respect  to  the  offense  for  which   the
nonjudicial punishment was imposed,  the  majority  of  the  Board  believes
there were mitigating circumstances present which lead them to  believe  the
punishment imposed was excessively harsh.  In this respect, the majority  of
the Board notes the applicant’s circumstances  at  the  time  she  requested
separation did,  in  fact,  warrant  a  hardship  discharge.  Based  on  the
information in her request for hardship separation, the applicant was  going
through a very stressful period because she had a child which had a  history
of frequent illnesses in which squadron members were  aware.  The  commander
endorsed  the  applicant's  separation  request  and  recommended   she   be
discharged with an honorable discharge.  The  majority  of  the  Board  also
notes  the  applicant's  overall  record  of  performance  on   her   Airmen
Performance Reports (APRs) for the last four years was outstanding. In  view
of  these  considerations,  the  majority  of  the  Board  believes  that  a
reduction in grade from sergeant  (E-4)  to  airman  (E-2)  was  excessively
harsh and unjust. Accordingly, the majority of  the  Board  believes  proper
and fitting relief in this




case would be to restore the applicant to the grade of senior  airman  (E-4)
prior to separation from the  Air  Force,  and  recommends  her  records  be
corrected to the extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that she was  promoted  to  the  grade  of
senior airman (E-4) with a date of  rank  of       14  April  1990,  and  an
effective date 14 April 1990.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2006-01431
in Executive Session on 15 August 2006, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member
                 Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended to grant the applicant’s  request.
 Ms. Cottrell voted to deny the applicant’s request and  does  not  wish  to
submit                  a                  Minority                  Report.
                                      The  following  documentary   evidence
pertaining to Docket Number BC-2006-01431 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 May 06, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 23 Jun 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 28 Jun 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 12 Jul 06.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jul 06.
    Exhibit G.  Applicant's Response, dated 18 Jul 06




      RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                        Panel Chair











AFBCMR BC-2006-01431




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 she was promoted to the
grade of senior airman (E-4) with a date of rank of 14 April 1990, and an
effective date 14 April 1990.









  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency

AFBCMR
1535 Command Drive
EE Wing, 3rd Floor
Andrews AFB, MD 20762-7002


      Your application to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military
Records, AFBCMR BC-2006-01431, has been finalized.

      The Board determined that the military records should be corrected as
set forth in the attached copy of a Memorandum for the Chief of Staff,
United States Air Force.  The office responsible for making the correction
will inform you when your records have been changed.

      After correction, the records will be reviewed to determine if you
are entitled to any monetary benefits as a result of the correction of
records.  This determination is made by the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service (DFAS-DE), Denver, Colorado, and involves the assembly and careful
checking of finance records.  It may also be necessary for the DFAS-DE to
communicate directly with you to obtain additional information to ensure
the proper settlement of your claim.   Because of the number and complexity
of claims workload, you should expect some delay.  We assure you, however,
that every effort will be made to conclude this matter at the earliest
practical date.


Sincerely



                                                                    RALPH
J. PRETE
                                                                     Chief
Examiner
                                                                    Air
Force Board for Correction
                                                                    of
Military Records

Attachments:
1.  Record of Proceedings
2.  Copy of Directive

cc:
DFAS-DE