3 

ic 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

JUL  0 2  1998 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02797 
COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

His former grade of sergeant (E-4) be restored. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
He had  less than two months  left  in service before  reduction of 
rank  was  handed  down.  The  commander had  less  than  30 days  of 
command  when  he  (commander) made  the  decision.  The  applicant 
feels  there  was  a  lack  of  evidence  and  insufficient  proof  of 
wrongdoing. 
In support of his request, he submitted a copy of the Article 15 
with supporting documents. 

_-  

His complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
The applicant entered active duty on 14 January 1988. 
A resume of his EPRs is as follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 
13 Jan 1989 
13 Sep 1989 
13 Sep 1990 
13 Sep 1991 
13 Sep 1992 
13 Sep 1993 
1 Apr 1994 
1 Apr 1995 
1 Apr 1996 
1 Apr 1997 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

9 
4 
3 
3 
4 
4 
5 
3 
3 
4 

On 25 July 1997, applicant was notified of his commander's intent 
You, did, at or 
22  July  1997, with  intent  to 
near 
an official statement, to wit: 

punishment upon him  f o r :  

- 

I l I   took car,e of the check.  My wife did write it -  but I took care 
of it,,!' which statement was totally false, 
you to be so false.  You, did, at or near 

between on or about 14 July 1 
h intent to deceive, make to 

tent to deceive, .make t 
an official statement 
on,I1 which statement was totally false, 
and was then known by you to be so false.  You, did, at or near 
AFB, 
16 July 1997 
an official statement, to wit: "The check that was written to the 
tten  by  my  wife,11 which 
Child  Care  Center +and bounc 
statement was totally false, 
en known by you to be  so 
FB 
between on or about 
'false. 
14 July 
7, with intent to deceive, 
,  an off5cial  statement, to wit:  "The 
make  to 
check t 
the Child Care Center and bounced was 
written by  my  wife," which statement was totally false, 
then known by you to be so false.  You, did, at or near 
AFB, 
on or about 19 June 1997, make and utter to the 
Child Development Center a certain check, in words and figures as 
follows, to  wit:  check  number  382, dated  19  June  1997,  in  the 
amount  of  $243.33,  and  did  thereafter  dishonorably  fail  t o  
maintain  sufficient funds  in  the  First  Union  National  Bank  for 
payment of such check in full upon its presentment for payment. 
On 5 August  1997, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived 
his  right  to  a  trial  by  court-martial,  requested  a  persdnal 
appearance and submitted a written presentation. 
On 7 August 1997, he was found guilty by his commander who imposed 
the following punishment:  Reduction to the grade of airman first 
class, with new date of rank of 7 August 1997, 21 days extra duty, 
and a reprimand. 
Applicant  did  appeal  the  punishment;  however,  the  appeal  was 
denied  on  19  August  1997. 
The  Article  15  was  filed  in  his 
Unfavorable Information file  (UIF) . 
The applicant had  a date of  separation  (DOS)  of  11 January  1998 
and is currently serving in the Air Force Reserves. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  Chief, Military  Justice  Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed  this 
application  and  stated  that  the  evidence  relied  upon  by  the 
commander to  support his  decision to punish  the  applicant  under. 
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice  (UCMJ), consisted of 
the returned check  and  statements from MSgt  R---, TSgt  S---  and 
SSgt A---.  The applicant lied directly to his commander about the 
location of his privately-owned weapon.  After considering all the 
evidence,  the  commander  did  not  believe  the  rather  strained 
explanation  and  determined  that  the  applicant  did  commit  the 
offenses cited and imposed punishment.  The applicant claimed that 

2 

AFBCMR 97-02797 

his reduction was an excessive punishment for the charged offense. 
Considering the applicant was charged with five separate offenses 
and the commander could have reduced him to airman basic, the loss 
of one stripe coupled with 21 days extra duty and a reprimand is 
not excessive or illegal punishment.  The applicant had received a 
prior Article 15 for financial irresponsibility on 28 August 1996. 
His  suspension ended on  18 February  1997.  Five months  later, he 
was  again  in  trouble  for  financial  irresponsibility. 
In 
conclusion,  the  applicant's  nonjudicial  punishment  action  was 
properly accomplished and legally sufficient.  He was afforded all 
rights  granted  by  statute  and  regulation. 
Additionally  the 
applicant had the advice of counsel throughout the proceedings and 
exercised  his  decisions  accordingly. 
After  reviewing  the 
available  records,  JAJM  determined  there  are  no  legal  errors 
requiring corrective action regarding  the nonjudicial punishment 
and administrative relief is not warranted.  They recommended the 
applicant's request be denied. 
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 

The  Enlisted  Promotions  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed  the 
application  and  defers  to  the  evaluation  from  JAJM.  However, 
should  the  board  grant  the  applicant's  request,  his  former 
effective date and date of rank  for sergeant was 1 January 1990. 
They  also noted that  the applicant has  a high year tenure  (HYT) 
date of January 1998. 
A  complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

--  

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Copies  of  the  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the  applicant  on 
8 December 1997 for review and comment within 30 days.  A s   of this 
date, no response has been received in this office. 

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  probable  error  or  injustice  to 
warrant restoring his former grade of sergeant.  The commander had 
the discretionary authority to impose nonjudicial punishment under 
Article 15, UCMJ, when he concluded that reliable evidence existed 
to  prove  an  offense  was  committed. 
The  applicant  has  not 
submitted any  evidence  to  sufficiently convince  the  Board  there 
was  a  lack  of  evidence  showing he  committed all  of  the  charged 
offenses.  Additionally, since this is his second Article 15 for a 

3 

AFBCMR 97-02797 

similar  offense, the  Board  is  not  convinced  this  is  excessive 
punishment.  In  light  of  his  past  disciplinary  record  and  the 
nature  of  the  current  charges, we  do  not  find  the  commander's 
punishment disproportionate to the offense and conclude no basis 
exists to recommend favorable action on his request. 

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 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  13  May  1998,  under  the  provisions  of  AFI 
36-2603: 

Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member 
Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Member 
Mrs Kay Byrne, Examiner  (without vote) 

--  

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Sep 97, with atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C .   Letter, AFPC/JAJM, dated 29 Oct 97. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 18 Nov 97. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Dec 97. 

i 
Panel Chair