RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03767
		INDEX CODE:  110.03, 126.03,
		             126.04

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 imposed on 30 May 02 be set aside and removed from his records.

The Letters of Reprimand (LORs) dated 15 Apr 02, 23 May 02, and 31 May 02 be declared void and removed from his records.

He be allowed to reenter the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The allegations made against him by two other airmen, which resulted in his receiving an Article 15, were not true, and one of the individuals retracted her allegation.

He was initially denied counsel and redress.

Three of the four LORs he received were unjust.

He made a mistake and did not conduct himself in a professional and positive manner as a representative of the Air Force.  He feels that he has the desire and qualities required to be successful if given the opportunity to pursue his chosen career path.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided personal statements, documentation pertaining to the Article 15, and copies of the LORs.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15 Jan 02 for a period of six years in the grade of airman basic.  

On 22 Jun 02, the applicant’s commander notified him that she was recommending that the applicant be discharged for entry level performance or conduct.  The reasons for this action were:

	a.  On or about 31 May 02, he violated a lawful general instruction by not having his hair cut within Air Force standards.  For this misconduct, he received an AF Form 174, Record of Individual Counseling on 4 Jun 02.

	b.  On or about 31 May 02, he failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (Lt N---‘s office at 0700 hours).  For this misconduct, he received an LOR on 31 May 02.

	c.  Between on or about 24 May 02 and on or about 31 May 02, he committed an indecent assault upon a female airman by placing his hands on her crotch and rubbing her thigh, with intent to gratify his sexual desires.  For this misconduct and paragraph “d” below, he received an Article 15 on 30 May 02.

	d.  On or about 14 May 02, he committed an indecent assault upon a female airman by kissing her and placing her hand on his underwear, with the intent to gratify his sexual desires.

	e.  On or about 22 May 02, he failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (to school after being released from the hospital).  For this misconduct, he received an LOR on 23 May 02.

	f.  On or about 20 Apr 02, he was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he failed to refrain from punching a hole in a wall locker, as it was his duty to do.  For this misconduct, he received an LOR on 20 May 02.

	g.  On or about 15 Apr 02, he was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he failed to sign in on the High Risk Log at 1800 hours.  For this misconduct, he received an LOR on 15 Apr 02.

The applicant was advised of his rights in the matter and that an entry level separation would be recommended.

On 2 Jul 02, the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate found the discharge case file to be legally sufficient and concurred with the commander’s recommendation for an entry level separation.  The discharge authority approved the separation of the applicant and directed that he be furnished an entry level separation.

On 3 Jul 02, the applicant was separated under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Entry Level Performance and Conduct) with an entry level separation.  He was credited with 5 months and 19 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommended denial.  They indicated that a set aside of an Article 15 should only be granted when the evidence demonstrates an error or a clear injustice.  The evidence presented by the applicant was insufficient to warrant setting aside the Article 15 action, and did not demonstrate an equitable basis for relief.  The applicant provided no evidence of a clear error or injustice related to the nonjudicial punishment action.  With respect to the LORs, AFLSA/JAJM stated that they are administrative in nature and are within the commander’s and supervisor’s discretion.  It appeared that the commander followed established rules in the manner in which the LORs were administered and the applicant was given sufficient time to rebut them.  In AFLSA/JAJM’s view, the commander’s and supervisor’s judgment should not be overturned at this time.  They were clearly aware of the facts and made reasoned and sound decisions based on the evidence they had before them.

A complete copy of the AFLSA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS indicated that based on the documentation in the file, they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, and was within the sound discretion of the discharge authority.  Airmen are given entry-level separation/uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service.  The Department of the Defense (DoD) determined that if a member served less than 180 days of continuous active service, it would be unfair to the member and the service to characterize their limited service.  Therefore, the applicant's uncharacterized character of service is correct and in accordance with DoD and Air Force Instructions.  An entry level/uncharacterized separation should not be confused with other types of separation.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPAE indicated that the applicant's RE code of 2C ("Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service,") is correct.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 30 May 03 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s uncorroborated assertions or the documentation presented sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs).  The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was given an entry level separation for misconduct as a result of his receiving an Article 15, four LORs, and counseling.  We find no evidence which would lead us to believe that the information used as a basis for his separation was erroneous or was an abuse of discretionary authority.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we adopt the Air Force rationale and conclude that no compelling basis exists to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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 issues 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-03767 in Executive Session on 8 Jul 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Oct 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 14 Mar 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 4 Apr 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 21 May 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.