RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00417
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The nonjudicial punishment (NJP) action he received on 30 Sep 
10, under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) be 
set aside and removed from his record.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Article 15 should be set aside because it fails to uphold 
Air Force core values.  Specifically, integrity and service 
before self as his commander decided on a punishment before all 
the evidence was presented.

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served on active duty from 20 Jul 04 until 12 Jul 
11.

On 21 Sep 10, the applicant, then a senior airman, was offered 
NJP under Article 15, for dereliction of duty for sleeping on 
duty, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ.  After consulting with 
counsel, the applicant accepted the Article 15 proceedings and 
waived his right to demand trial by court-martial.  He presented 
written matters and did not request a personal appearance before 
the commander.  On 30 Sep 10, the applicant’s commander decided 
the applicant had committed the charged offense and imposed 
punishment consisting of a reduction to the grade of airman 
first class, 10 extra days of duty which was suspended, and a 
reprimand.  The applicant appealed the commander’s decision.  On 
6 and 8 Oct 10, the applicant’s appeal was denied by his 
squadron commander and group commander respectively.  The 
Article 15 action was reviewed and determined to be legally 
sufficient.  

The applicant received two previous Article 15s, one in Mar 10, 
for striking someone with his fist, and one in Sep 06, for 
operating a vehicle with an open container and for speeding in 
base housing.  

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial.  JAJM states that the applicant 
has not demonstrated a clear error or injustice.  The applicant 
does not allege an error in the processing of his Article 15.  
The applicant alleges that he was punished harsher than others 
who committed the same offense and his commander decided on a 
punishment before all the evidence was presented.  However, the 
applicant does not make a compelling argument that the Board 
should overturn the commander’s nonjudicial punishment decision.  
The commander’s ultimate decision on the Article 15 action is 
firmly based on the evidence of the case and the punishment 
decision was well within the limits of the commander’s authority 
and discretion.  In addition, the commander reviewed all 
submissions by the applicant before making his final decision on 
the punishment.

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 24 Feb 13, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit 
D).  As of this date, this office has received no response.

________________________________________________________________
_

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 agree with the opinion and recommendation 
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 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 issue 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-2013-00417 in Executive Session on 26 Sep 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jan 13.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 19 Feb 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 13.




								
				Panel Chair