RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03470 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 offered on 15 Dec 10 and imposed on 22 Dec 10, be set aside and removed from his records. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Article 15 punishment he received was based on a false accusation that he pulled a fire alarm that later proved to be false. As a result, he was charged with multiple violations that would not have been charged had he not been falsely accused. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 Jul 09. On 22 Dec 10, the applicant received an Article 15 for being incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties and drunk and disorderly, in violation of Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). As a result, his punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of airman (E-2) (suspended) and a reprimand. On 22 Dec 10, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the Article 15 punishment and, on the same date, elected not to appeal the punishment or submit statements on his behalf. On 4 Jan 11, the Article 15 was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient. On 18 Jan 11, the suspended portion of the applicant’s Article 15 punishment was vacated for dereliction in the performance of his duties by failing to return to the local area at the end of his leave and he was reduced to the grade of airman (E-2), with a new date of rank of 22 Dec 10. On 20 Jul 13, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with a narrative reason of “Completion Of Required Active Service”, and he was credited with four years of total active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial, indicating the applicant has not shown a clear error or injustice. The applicant's argument centers around the strength or validity of the evidence supporting the NJP proceedings. However, the commander at the time of the Article 15 had the best opportunity to evaluate the evidence for this action. With that perspective, the commander exercised the discretion that the applicant granted him when the applicant accepted the Article 15 and found NJP appropriate. The legal review process showed that the commander did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in making this decision. The applicant does not make a compelling argument that the Board should overturn the commander's original NJP decision on the basis of injustice. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 31 Oct 13 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ 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 an 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 Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. While the applicant’s arguments are duly noted, in the absence of any evidence the applicant was denied rights to which he was entitled, that his nonjudicial punishment represented an abuse of discretionary authority, or that he has been treated differently than others similarly situated, we are not convinced he is 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. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2013-03470 in Executive Session on 8 Apr 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Jul 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 16 Sep 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 13. Panel Chair