RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03820
            INDEX CODE:  134.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  17 MAY 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Article 15 dated 21 Jun 06 be removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Article 15 was a gross injustice.  She  was  given  an  Article  15  for
failure to go on or about 12 May 06.  In her statement dated 23 Apr 07,  she
provides a detailed account of the events surrounding  her  receipt  of  the
Article 15.

In support of the application, the applicant submits her personal  statement
with 19 attachments.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  23  Jan  97.   She  was
progressively promoted to the grade of Staff Sergeant effective and  with  a
date of rank of 1 Jan 02.

On 21 Jun 06, the applicant received an Article 15 for failure to go at  the
time prescribed to her appointed place of duty.  For this offense,  she  was
reduced to the grade of Senior Airman (suspended)  and  given  a  Letter  of
Reprimand.  On 18 Jul 06, the suspended  reduction  in  grade  was  vacated.
The applicant was reduced in grade to senior airman, effective  and  with  a
date of rank of 21 Jun 06.

On 15 Aug 06, the applicant was honorably discharged from active duty.   She
had served 9 years, 6 months and 23 days on active duty.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the  letter  prepared  by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial.  JAJM states the Article 15  was  based  on
evidence that the applicant failed to go to her appointed place of  duty  at
the prescribed time she was told.  While the order could have  more  clearly
stated that the applicant was expected to  report  exactly  at  0730  hours,
rather than directing her to report the "first hour" of her  duty  day  when
she returned from  leave,  the  order  was  clear  that  the  applicant  was
required to report at the first hour of  the  duty  day,  and  not  sometime
"within the first hour"  at  her  convenience.   JAJM  notes  the  applicant
portrays  herself  as  a  victim  of  unclear  orders,   even   though   she
acknowledged receipt and understanding of the order a full day prior to  her
first duty day.  JAJM opines she had sufficient opportunity to  clarify  the
order, especially given the fact that the reason for  her  appointment  with
the First Sergeant was her continued "misunderstanding" of her  leadership's
orders.

JAJM notes both non-judicial punishment actions underwent legal  review  and
were found to be legally sufficient.  A review  of  both  actions  indicates
that the applicant was afforded her full  rights  under  Article  15,  UCMJ.
She was afforded the opportunity to consult  with  defense  counsel  and  to
present matters on her own behalf, all  of  which  she  did.   There  is  no
evidence that the commander acted  in  an  arbitrary  or  capricious  manner
during either action.  Neither action is controverted by  the  evidence  nor
is there evidence  of  clear  error  or  injustice  during  the  Article  15
process.

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In her response dated 14 Aug 07,  the  applicant  states  she  is  extremely
disappointed with  the  recommendation  not  to  grant  her  relief  of  her
injustice.  She is not able to prove or disprove all that was written  about
her.  She fulfilled the first sergeant's order per the memorandum, dated  22
May 06, as the memorandum clearly absolves her of  any  wrong  doings.   She
cannot comprehend being denied relief if she met her intent (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.  Evidence  has  not  been  presented  which
would lead us to believe that the non-judicial punishment, initiated  on  12
May 06 and imposed on 21 Jun 06 was improper.  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.   We  have  no  such
showing here.  The evidence indicates that, during the  processing  of  this
Article 15 action, the applicant was offered every right to  which  she  was
entitled.  There is  nothing  in  the  evidence  provided,  other  than  the
applicant’s assertions, which would lead us to believe that the  actions  by
the imposing commander were inappropriate or that he did not have access  to
all of the appropriate 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.   Therefore,  we  defer  to  the  opinion  of  legal
authority regarding this issue and find no evidence of error  or  injustice.
Accordingly, based on the available evidence of record,  we  find  no  basis
upon which to favorably consider her request that the Article 15 be  removed
from her records.

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 issue  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 13 Sep 07, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Vice Chair
            Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
      Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered pertaining to  AFBCMR  BC-
2007-03820:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Apr 07, w/atch.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFOLA/JAJM, dated 20 Jul 07.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jul 07.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, 14 Aug 07, w/atchs.



                                   PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair