RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01763
		INDEX CODES:  100.06, 131.06

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her rank be changed from airman basic to airman first class.

Her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4E be changed to one that would allow her to reenter the military.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She only received corrective action once in her military career.

The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 she received was her first one.

She was never in any previous trouble nor had any prior action taken against her while she was in the military.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided copies of the Article 15 and her separation document.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 Jul 96 for a period of six years in the grade of airman first class.  She received two Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) in which she received overall ratings of 4 and 5 (1-5 (Highest)).

On 15 May 00, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was considering whether she should be punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) based on allegations that the applicant did, on or about 26 Apr 00, with intent to deceive, make a false official statement to SSgt XXXXXXXXXXX that the last time she saw a camera it was with SSgt XXXXXX in outbound freight and that she did not know the camera’s whereabouts; and, that she did, between on or about 25 Apr 00 and on or about 10 May 00, steal a digital camera, which was military property valued at $699.00.  The applicant was advised of her rights in the matter.  After consulting military legal counsel, the applicant waived her right to demand trial by court-martial, accepted the nonjudicial proceedings under Article 15, and submitted written comments for review.  On 22 May 00, after considering the matters presented by the applicant, the commander found that the applicant had committed the offenses alleged and imposed punishment.  The applicant was reduced from the grade of senior airman to airman basic, ordered to forfeit 350.00 for two months, and reprimanded.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment. On 16 Jun 00, legal authority found that the nonjudicial proceedings under Article 15 were legally sufficient.

On 23 Jul 00, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Completion of Required Active Service) and furnished an honorable discharge.  She was credited with four years of active service.  She was assigned an RE code of 4E. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommended denial noting that the applicant did not contest the merits of the Article 15, rather she based her argument on the issue that the Article 15 was the only one in her record, which did not justify the reduction in rank, or the denial of reentry into the military.  The applicant was found to have committed two very serious offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), theft of government property, and the making of a false official statement.  According to AFLSA/JAJM, the commander clearly acted well within his authority in reducing the applicant’s rank.  A set aside should only be granted when the evidence demonstrates an error or a clear injustice.  In AFLSA/JAJM’s view, the basis of the applicant’s request for relief is insufficient to warrant setting aside the Article 15, and does no demonstrate an equitable basis for relief.  The applicant has provided no evidence of a clear error or injustice related to the nonjudicial punishment action.

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

AFPC/DPPPWB recommended denial indicating that, in their opinion, the demotion action taken against the applicant was procedurally correct and there was no evidence of any irregularities or that the case was mishandled.  In their view, the applicant’s request to change her rank to airman first class is without merit.

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

AFPC/DPPAE indicated that the applicant’s RE code of 4E (Grade is airman first class or below and airman completed 31 or more months, if a first-term airman; or, grade is airman first class or below and airman is a second-term or career airman) is correct.  In their view, no evidence was presented to support changing the RE code.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 21 Nov 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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case.  However, we did not find it sufficient to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility.  The evidence of record reflects that the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 based on allegations that she stole a digital camera, which was military property, and made a false official statement about the matter.  She was reduced in grade from senior airman to airman basic.  No evidence has been presented which would lead us to believe that the imposed punishment was based on erroneous information or was an abuse of discretionary authority.  After completing her first full-term of service, she was subsequently separated from the Air Force in the grade of airman basic with four years of active service.  As a result, she was assigned an RE code of 4E (grade is airman first class or below and airman completed 31 or more months, if a first-term airman).  Therefore, it appears that the applicant’s RE code was appropriately assigned, and we find no evidence that the assigned RE code was in error.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to act favorably on the applicant’s requests to change her rank and her RE code.  However, we believe it should be pointed out to the applicant that her RE code of 4E is one that, based on the needs of the respective military service, can be waived by the enlistment authorities.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2003-01763 in Executive Session on 13 Jan 04, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 9 Jul 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 6 Aug 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 1 Oct 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 03.

                                   Panel Chair