RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00189

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Article 15 imposed on 18 February 1999 be removed from her records and the reenlistment eligibility (RE) and separation program designator (SPD) codes be changed so that she may reenter the Air Force Reserve.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The RE code 4H assigned was not applicable in accordance with AFR 700-20, Vol II, SDS SE 602, Part 1; AFR; 39-10, Table 1-4, and AFR 35-16, Tables 6-2, 6-3 and 6-4, “Airmen with a remaining military service obligation (MSO) who are not eligible to return for reenlistment will be discharged and assigned RBA code 2# or 4#.”  She was told after her unfavorable information file (UIF) expired she was eligible to return to Active Reserve.  Her MSO remaining is 14 May 2004 and she was released to the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR).  Her SPD according to the operating instructions (OI’s) is for airmen being released from active duty.  The two codes do not correspond.  Also, the Article 15 punishment was to take money from her pay, yet she was released from her active duty assignment with half of her separation pay.  The amount on the DD Form 214 was not the amount she received from finance in her final pay (approximately $8,500 after taxes).  So this is also incorrect.  The technician who processed and typed the orders said this amount was according to Robins AFB Active Duty Pay Section.  Air Force Reserve Personnel Records stated that her code should have changed automatically in the system after the Article 15 expired, but as of now, it has not been updated.  She requests the Board’s assistance in this matter so she may continue her Air Force career with pride.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

By Special Order AB-288, dated 24 September 1998, the applicant, a Reservist, was ordered to extended active duty in the grade of technical sergeant for a period of 48 months and entered active duty on 1 October 1998.  

On 10 February 1999, applicant was notified of her commander’s intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon her for the following offenses:  Between on or about 7 August 1997 and      24 November 1998, with intent to defraud and for the procurement of lawful currency, she wrongfully and unlawfully made and uttered to the Army/Air Force Exchange System (AAFES) certain checks for the payment of money drawn upon the Safe Federal Credit Union in the total amount of $5,231.66 knowing that she did not or would not have sufficient funds in or credit with the bank for payment of said checks; on or about 28 May 1998, with the intent to deceive, made an official statement to a senior master sergeant that she was not currently in financial trouble, and that she had never been behind on her American Express Government Card, which statement was totally false, and was known by her to be false; and between on or about 1 August 1998 and   30 December 1998, she violated lawful regulation, to wit:  Air Force Instructions 65-104, dated 1 May 1996, in that she failed to pay American Express card account in the amount of $2,479.95.

On 16 February 1999, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived her right to a trial by court-martial, requested a personal appearance and submitted a written presentation.

On 18 February 1999, she was found guilty by her commander who imposed the following punishment: suspended forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months; suspended reduction to the grade of staff sergeant, and a reprimand.

On 18 February 1999, she was advised by her commander that her active duty tour was being curtailed due to her abuse and delinquency of her government travel card, financial irresponsibility, and falsifying recruiting application.

On 26 March 1999, she was honorably released from her active duty assignment and transferred to the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR), in the grade of technical sergeant, with an RE code of 4H and a SPD code of LBK, and given half pay separation.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial.  The applicant admits in her response to the nonjudicial punishment action that she was “very irresponsible in her financial affairs.”  Contrary to her assertion, the applicant’s actions were not isolated and took place from Aug 97 to Dec 98, a period well in excess of a year.  The applicant charged almost $2500 on her government American Express card and failed to pay on it for almost 5 months, wrote 32 bad checks totaling over $5200 to Army Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) over the course of 15 months, and lied to senior noncommissioned officers concerning her financial situation.  Considering the magnitude of her offenses it is clear that nonjudicial punishment was appropriate and court-martial for these offenses would have been neither inappropriate nor unreasonable.  Additionally, the punishment imposed on the applicant was lawful and appropriate, even quite lenient, for the offenses committed.

It should be noted that the applicant indicates the Article 15 punishment was to take money from her pay, yet she was released from active duty with half separation pay.  The forfeitures imposed as part of the punishment were suspended.  As the suspension was never vacated, money would not have been forfeited from her pay.  As to the amount of separation pay received by the applicant and whether that amount was accurate, that is a Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) issue and should be addressed by that organization.

The applicant has provided no evidence of a clear error or injustice related to the nonjudicial punishment proceedings.  They recommend the Board deny the applicant’s request to have the action removed from her records.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFRC/RSOO recommends no change to her records.  After reviewing the application, there is no injustice or error indicated in her records requiring a correction.  The applicant did receive an Article 15 and her re-enlistment code reflects such.  As a result, they do not recommend a change to her records.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 27 Jul 01 for review and comments within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

DFAS-POCC/DE provided the actual amount of separation pay paid to the applicant and found she was due 5 percent separation pay at date of separation on 26 Mar 01.  

The following is the calculation used in determining what was posted to the member’s Master Military Pay Account (MMPA):

	Base Pay:  $2,073.30 X 12 X 10.75 (10 years and 9 months of total active service) X .05% = $13,372.78.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the DFAS-POCC/DE evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23 Aug 01 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/RSOO revised their original advisory and stated:

The applicant did in fact receive and accepted the Article 15.  She had the opportunity to appeal the punishment, but did not.  The Article 15 was served on 18 Feb 99.  On 26 Mar 99, the applicant was involuntarily separated; therefore no other adverse action could be taken.

The HQ AFRC Commander recommends individuals who misuse and abuse the government travel card be discharged rather than transferring to the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR).  The applicant was transferred to the IRR with a reenlistment eligibility (RE) Code of 4H, when she could have been discharged.  

Recruiting concurs with AFLSA/JAJM’s recommendation that the applicant’s Article 15 remain in her records since the facts of the circumstances leading to the punishment have not changed.  They again recommend denial of the applicant’s request.  Her RE code should remain a 4H.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7 Sep 01 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  The evidence reflects that the commander initiated Article 15 action based on information he determined to be reliable and that the nonjudicial action was properly accomplished and applicant was afforded all rights granted by statute and regulation.  We have not been convinced, by her submission, that her commander abused his discretionary authority when he imposed the nonjudicial punishment, and since we find no abuse of that authority, we find no reason to overturn the commander’s decision.  Based on the circumstances surrounding her separation from the Air Force, we find no error or injustice in regard to the RE code issued.  In addition, it appears she was paid the appropriate amount of separation pay.  Therefore, lacking substantial evidence to the contrary, no basis exists to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request to the contested Article 15 and reentry code.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 15 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 1 Aug 01, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 17 Apr 01.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFRC/RSOO, dated 16 Jul 01.
	Exhibit E.	Letter SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Jul 01.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, DFAS-POCC/DE, dated, 15 Aug 01.
	Exhibit G.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Aug 01.
	Exhibit H.	Letter, AFRC/RSOO, dated 21 Aug 01
	Exhibit I.	Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 7 Sep 01.

	
	Panel Chair