RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  01-02382
		INDEX CODE 126.04  126.02
	 	COUNSEL:  

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Article 15 imposed on her on 17 Jan 01 be removed from her records and her grade of senior airman (SRA) be reinstated.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Article 15 for being absent without leave (AWOL) was unfair since she was either at her place of duty or performing Honor Guard duties during the dates in question. Her Honor Guard duties required her to be absent from her normally appointed place of duty. Her supervisors were aware of this and she kept them informed. Her chain of command never questioned her whereabouts for this lengthy period of alleged absence, nor did they conduct a simple investigation with her supervisors and co-workers. She believes a heated telephone call between her husband and her supervisor may have added impetus to her receiving the Article 15 rather than a lesser form of administrative action. She provides a copy of her Article 15, appeal presentations and supporting statements.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the period in question, the applicant was a SRA assigned as an active duty service commitment analyst at Randolph AFB, TX. 

The overall ratings of her Enlisted Performance Reports (EPR) from 24 Aug 95 through 2 Apr 01 are: 5, 5, 5, 4 and 2 (Referral).  

On 8 Jan 01, the applicant was notified of her section commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon her for failing to go to her appointed place of duty at Randolph AFB on divers occasions between 12 Sep and 10 Dec 00.  On 11 Jan 01, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived her right to a trial by court-martial, did not request a personal appearance but did submit a written presentation. On 17 Jan 01, the applicant was found guilty by her commander who reduced her to airman first class (A1C) with a new date of rank (DOR) of 17 Jan 01.

Applicant appealed the punishment; however, the appeal was denied on 5 Feb 01.  The Article 15 was filed in her Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 12 Apr 01, the EPR closing 2 Apr 01 was referred to the applicant. Section III, Evaluation of Performance, reflected that she failed to meet minimum standards, had unacceptable on/off duty conduct and ineffective supervisory/leadership skills. The overall rating was 2, meaning she was not recommended for promotion at that time. The rater commented that the applicant had failed to meet standards through negligence of personal accountability and had received an Article 15 for failure to report to her duty section on numerous occasions. The Additional Rater noted that comments from the applicant were not received within the required period.

On 1 Jun 01, she requested that the Article 15 be set aside, but the section commander denied her request on 26 Jun 01.

She then filed an Inspector General (IG) complaint.  On 8 Aug 01, the HQ AFPC/IG advised her that her complaint was dismissed because Articles 15s were not under the purview of the IG.
 
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM notes that accepting nonjudicial punishment proceedings is simply a choice of forum; it is not an admission of guilt. The evidence demonstrates there was significant concern by her supervisors and that she had been cautioned about her absences from her duty location. Contrary to her assertions, there is ample evidence the honor guard supervisors were consulted about her honor guard duties.  There was sufficient evidence for the commander to determine the offense had been committed.  The applicant's arguments failed to convince either the commander who imposed punishment or the appellate authority.  While a different fact finder may have come to a different conclusion, the commander's findings were neither arbitrary nor capricious and should not be disturbed. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advised that the applicant's referral EPR renders her ineligible for promotion consideration. She will regain eligibility only after receiving an EPR with a rating of 3 or higher that is not a referral, provided she is otherwise qualified and recommended by the commander.  She will meet the 20 months minimum time-in-grade (TIG) requirement for promotion to SRA on 17 Sep 02.  They defer to AFLSA/JAJM's recommendation. However, should the Board grant her request, her former DOR and effective date of SRA was 24 Aug 98.  She would not be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration for the 01E5 cycle because of the referral EPR.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 18 Jan 02 for review and comment within 30 days. The applicant subsequently requested that her case be temporarily withdrawn in order to have more time to rebut.  As a result, her case was administratively closed on 25 Feb 02.  

The applicant provided a response on 21 Mar 02 and asserts that her superintendent influenced the commander in his decision not to set aside the Article 15.  She provides a clarification statement from the flight chief honor guard as well as a supporting statement from her area defense counsel (ADC) and others.  She wants to have the injustice done to her unveiled and her record cleared of these charges. She wants her SRA stripe reinstated. 

A complete copy of applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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 to warrant voiding the Article 15. We thoroughly reviewed the applicant’s contentions and complete submission. However, she has not presented sufficient evidence persuading us that the nonjudicial punishment was improper or unjust. In cases of this nature, we are reluctant to disturb the judgments of command officers absent a strong showing of abuse of discretionary authority. The statements submitted in her behalf were noted, but in our view they do not overcome the fact that her absences from her duty station were not always accountable. Based on the available evidence, it appears the applicant was offered every right to which she was entitled. After considering the matters raised by the applicant, the commander determined that she had committed “one or more of the offenses alleged” and imposed punishment.  The applicant has not provided convincing evidence that the imposing commander or the appellate authority abused their discretionary authority, that her substantial rights were violated during the processing of the Article 15 punishment, or that the punishment was excessive. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 18 April 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR No. 01-02382 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Aug 01, w/atchs
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 11 Dec 01.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 9 Jan 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jan 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Feb 02.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Feb 02.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Mar 02.