. 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02723 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

OCT  0 9  1998 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

Two Article 15s,  imposed on 15 January 1997 and 1 April 1997, 

1. 
be declared void and removed from his records. 

2. 

He be reinstated to the grade of master sergeant (E-7). 
He and his spouse receive a join-spouse assignment. 

3. 
4.  The  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR),  for  the  period 
27 August 1996 through 13 May 1997, be declared void and removed 
from his records. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
A  woman, not  associated with  the  military  in  any way,  falsely 
accused him  of  a consensual sexual relationship with her for a 
three  week  period.  This  was  a  deliberate  attack  against  his 
career in the Air Force.  Applicant states that this woman was on 
probation in 7 for fraud- 

with  regard  to  the  contested  EPR, applicant  contends  that  his 
first sergeant and commander 

I

.

 

statement on the EPR  regarding his midpoint 

feedback . 
In support of  his  appeal, applicant  submits four EPRs  for the 
periods  closing 26 August  1993  through 26  August  1996,  two Air 
Force Achievement Medal  certificates, an Air  Force Commendation 
Medal certificate and, .newspaper articles. 
Applicant's submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 May 1995 for 
a period of four years in the grade of Technical Sergeant (E-6). 
On  26  December  1996,  while  serving  in  the  grade  of  master 
sergeant ,  applicant  was  served  with  nonjudicial  punishment 
proceedings under Article  15, Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice 
(UCMJ) , by his Squadron Section Commander.  The allegations .were: 
Specification 1:  Applicant did, within the state of Ildp, on 
or about  31 October 1996,  contribute to the delinquency of 

-, 

a woman not his wife. 

a  female  under  eighteen  years  of 
olic  beverages,  in  violation  of 
2:  Applicant, a married man, 
on divers occasions from abo 
er 1996 ,  wrongfully have  sexual intercourse with 
The applicant, after consulting 
his defense counsel, waived his right to demand trial by court- 
martial  and  accepted nonjudicial  proceedings under Article  15, 
UCMJ and elected to submit a written presentation. 
On 15 January 1997, the Squadron Section Commander considered the 
matters  presented  by  the  applicant  and  found  that  he  did  not 
commit  the  offense  of  Specification  1,  contributing  to  the 
delinquency  of  a  minor. 
However,  the  commander  found  that 
applicant did commit the offense of adultery in Specification 2 
of the Article 15.  On 15 January 1997, the applicant's commander 
imposed the punishment which consisted of reduction to the grade 
of technical sergeant and forfeiture of $975.45 pay per month for 
two months.  The  forfeiture was  suspended until  14 July  1997. 
Applicant indicated he did not wish to appeal. 
The  Squadron Section Commander  served the  applicant  his  second 
The allegation was:  Applicant did, 
on or about  27 December 1996,  with 
official statement that he stayed in 
November  1996, which  statement was 
totally false, and was  then known by  applicant to be  so false. 
The applicant, after consulting his defense counsel, waived his 
right  to  demand  trial  by  court-martial  and  elected  to  make  a 
written presentation. 
On  1 April  1997,  the  commander  found  that  the  applicant  did 
commit the offense alleged and imposed punishment which consisted 
of  reduction to the grade of  staff sergeant and  30 days' extra 
duty. 
The  applicant  appealed  and  the  appeal  was  denied  on 
21 April 1997. 
Applicant received a referral EPR  f o r   the period  27 August  1996 
through  13  May  1997. 
In  his  appeal,  he  does  not  submit 
information or  support  from  the  rating  chain  officials of  the 
contested report. 

2 

Applicant's EPR profile is as follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

26  Aug 93 
26  Aug 94 
26  Aug 95 
26  Aug 96 
*  13 May 97 
13 May 98 

*  Contested report 

5 
5 
5 
5 
2  (Referral report) 
5 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The Associate Chief, Military Justice Division, Air  Force Legal 
Services Agency, AFLSA/JAJM, states that  the  applicant has  not 
offered  any  new  evidence  to  support  his  position  that  he  was 
falsely accused with regard to the allegation of adultery in the 
15 January 1997 Article 15.  That issue was considered during the 
Article  15  process  and  was  resolved against  him.  Nor  has the 
applicant  submitted  any  evidence  or  argument  as  to  why  his 
1 April  1 9 9 7   Article  15,  for making a false official statement, 
should  be  set  aside.  In  fact  the  applicant  admitted  to  his 
commander and the Inspector General  (IG) that he made the false 
statement. 
Based  on  the  facts  available,  the  applicant's 
nonjudicial punishment  action was  properly  accomplished  and  he 
was  afforded all  the  rights granted by  statute.  There  are no 
legal  errors  requiring  corrective  action  regarding  the 
nonjudicial punishments .  They recommend applicant's request to 
reinstate him to the rank of master sergeant be denied. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C. 
The  Chief ,  Inquiries/BCMR  Section, Enlisted  Promotion  Branch, 
AFPC/DPPPWB,  states  that  they  defer  to  the  recommendation  of 
AFLSA/JAJM.  However,  should  the  AFBCMR  grant  the  applicant's 
request, his  former effective date and date of  rank  for master 
sergeant was 1 June 1 9 9 6 .  
A copy of this Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
Applicant states, in summary, that he is providing information to 
prove  t h a t   the  two  Article  1 5 s   received  were  unjust  and  t h e  
commander made  his decision based  solely on a travel  itinerary 
that was provided in a written presentation put  together by his 
Area Defense Counsel on 8 January 1996.  This information was not 

3 

provided  to  deceive  the  commander  on  any  allegations. 
allegation of adultery wasn't true then and isn't true today. 
Applicant had submitted three responses, dated 8 January, 1 March 
and 30 April 1998. 
Copies  of  the  applicant's  responses,  with  attachments,  are 
attached at Exhibits F, G and H. 

The 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION 

Procedures,  Directorate  of  Assignments, 

The  Noncommissioned  Officer  in  Charge  (NCOIC),  AF  CONUS 
Assignment 
HQ 
AFPC/DPAPPl,  states  that  on  19  Septe 
licant  was 
selected for a join spouse assignment to 
This 
assignment was canceled on 22 May 1997 due to his demotion to the 
grade  of  staff  sergeant  and  referral EPR.  Applicant's spouse 

ved  a  special  duty  assignment  to 
in June  1997.  They  have  no record with 
ng  for  a  join  spouse  assignment  to 
,  since  he  was  reduced  in  rank  and 
received a referral EPR, at the time of such application, he may 
not have been eligible to apply.  Also due to the reduction in 
rank, he  now  does  not  have  required  retainability  f o r   a  join 
spouse assignment. 
A  complete copy of this evaluation is attached at Exhibit I. 
The  Chief, BCMR  and  SSB  Section, HQ  AFPC/DPPPAB,  states, with 
regard to  the  contested EPR,  that Air  Force policy  is  that  an 
evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter 
of record.  To effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to 
hear  from  all  the  members  of  the  rating  chain--not  only  f o r  
support, but  for  clarification/explanation.  The  applicant  has 
failed  to  provide  any  support  from  the  rating  chain  of  the 
contested EPR. 
The  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  applicant.  He  has  failed  to 
substantiate  his  contention  that  the  contested  report  was  not 
rendered in good faith by all of the evaluators, or that he was 
excessively punished.  Based on the  lack  of  evidence provided, 
they recommend denial of  applicant's request. 
A  complete  copy  of  this  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit J. 

4 

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO  ADDITIONAL AIR  FORCE  EVALUATION: 
Applicant  submitted  a  response  to  the  additional  Air  Force 
evaluations  and  attached  a  copy  of  a  Security  Police 
investigation. 
Applicant's response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit L. 

The applicant has exhausted a11 remedies provided by existing 

THE  BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1. 
law or regulations. 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
3 .   Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant's 
submission,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  the  two  Article  1 5 s ,  
imposed on 15 January 1997 and 1 April 1997, should be declared 
void and removed from his records; that he be reinstated to the 
grade of master sergeant; that he and his spouse receive a join 
spouse  assignment;  or,  that  the  Enlisted  Performance  Report 
(EPR), for the period closing 13 May  1997, be declared void and 
removed  from  his  records. 
His  contentions  are  duly  noted; 
however, we do not find these assertions, in and by  themselves, 
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the 
offices  of  the Air  Force.  We  believe  applicant's contentions 
have been adequately addressed by the Air Force and we therefore 
agree  with  their  recommendations  and  adopt  their  rationale 
expressed as the basis  for our decision that the applicant has 
failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error 
or  an  injustice.  Therefore, we  find  no  compelling  basis  to 
recommend granting the relief sought. 
4.  The documentation provided with this case was  sufficient to 
give the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a 
personal  appearance, with  or  without  counsel,  would  not  have 
materially added to that understanding.  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  probable  material  error  or 
injustice;  that  the  application was  denied  without  a personal 

5 

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 this application in 
Executive  Session on 3  September 1998, under  the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603. 

Mr. Henry C. Saunders, Panel Chair 
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member 
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 

A. 
B. 
C. 
D. 
E. 
F. 
G. 
H. 
I. 
J. 
K. 
L. 

- 

DD Form 149, dated 3 Sep 97, w/atchs. 
Applicantis Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 29 Oct 97. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 18 Nov 9 7 -  
- . -  
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Dec 97. 
Applicantis Letter, dated 8 Jan 98, w/atchs. 
Applicantis Letter, dated 1 Mar 98, w/atch. 
Applicant's Letter, dated 30 Apr 98, w/atchs. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAPPl, dated 5 Jun 98. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 17 Jun 98. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Jun 89. 
Applicant I  s Letter, d a t e d 7  Jul 98y/atchs. 

~ 

Pa el Chair P 

HEN  Y C. SAUNDERS 

6