RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02497 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Article 15 imposed on 13 September 2010 be set aside and all rights and privileges be restored. 2. His grade of master sergeant (E-7) be restored with an effective date of 1 June 2004. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Despite his outstanding record, his commander abused his discretion by reducing him in rank four months before his retirement for a single occurrence of being late for work due to oversleeping. His commander’s actions were harsh and unjust. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement and copies of an information letter; Inspector General (IG) Complaints; appeal of Article 15; response to Article 15; Article 15 action; witness statements; electronic communications; IG response; Complaint of Wrongs under Article 138, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); Request for Redress; selection for deployment notification, a No-Show for Promotion Testing, Leave and Earnings Statement; retirement calculator documents; award documents; performance reports; and congressional inquiry documentation. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served from 5 June 1987 to 31 May 2011. He served as a Material Management Craftsman and was progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) effective 1 June 2004. The applicant received non-judicial punishment on 13 September 2010 for two incidents of failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. He received punishment consisting of reduction in grade to technical sergeant (E-6) with a new date of rank of 13 September 2010; forfeiture of $1,742 pay per month for two months, suspended through 12 March 2011; and 14 days extra duty. The applicant was released from active duty on 31 May 2011 and retired effective 1 June 2011 in the grade of technical sergeant. He served 23 years, 11 months, and 26 days o active duty. The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s service records, are contained in the advisory opinions prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility at Exhibits C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states the applicant’s commander offered the applicant non-judicial punishment on 31 August 2101 for two instances of failing to go to his appointed place of duty, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. The applicant consulted with defense counsel and accepted the Article 15, waiving his right to demand trial by court-martial. He presented written matters to the commander, but did not make a personal appearance. On 13 September 2010, the commander decided the applicant had committed the alleged offenses and imposed punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of technical sergeant, suspended forfeiture of $1,742 pay per month for two months, and 14 days extra duty. The applicant appealed the commander’s decision and provided matters in writing; however, both his commander and the appellate authority denied the appeal. The Article 15 action was reviewed and found to be legally sufficient. JAJM indicates that an examination of the applicant’s Article 15 shows no error or injustice. There appear to be no deficiencies in the exercise of any of the applicant’s rights to due process or assistance of counsel. His claim of injustice is not well- founded. First, the Article 15 was for two separate instances of the applicant failing to go to his appointed place of duty, not “for a single occurrence of being late for work due to oversleeping,” as contended by the applicant. Second, the evidence of the applicant’s failure to go fully supports the commander’s decisions. In fact, the statements from the people involved in the applicant’s two instances of failure to go which are included in the application, are sufficient evidence for the commander to determine that non-judicial punishment was warranted. The applicant’s commander was in the best position to evaluate the evidence available and to consider the applicant’s submission of additional matters. It is JAJM opinion that based on the evidence presented and considering the other factors mentioned by the applicant, the commander was clearly not acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner when he found non-judicial punishment appropriate in this case. Furthermore, the punishment imposed was appropriate to the offense and not unfairly harsh. The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE defers to the JAJM recommendation. DPSOE states that AFLOA/JAJM has reviewed this case, found no error or injustice, and recommends denial. The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 16 September 2011, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES 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 agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Military Justice Division and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis 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 Docket Number BC- 2011-02497 in Executive Session on 2 February 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-02497: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 1 Aug 11. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 30 Aug 11. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Sep 11. Panel Chair