RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-02651
INDEX CODE: 126.04
APPLICANT COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ), initiated on 31 Mar 1999 and imposed on 6 Apr 1999, be
removed from his military records.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He received the Article 15 because he was accused of not paying his
American Express Government Travel Card when he said he did. The charge
that he had not done so was the result of an error on the part of
American Express while processing his payment.
In support of his application, he submitted a letter from American
Express dated 13 May 99 and a letter to his commander explaining why he
believes the Article 15 should be removed (Exhibit A).
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is an enlisted member of the Regular Air Force who has a
Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) of 3 June 1987.
Prior to the events under review, he was progressively promoted to the
grade of staff sergeant, effective and with a date of rank of 1 October
1995.
On 31 Mar 99, the applicant was given notice of his commander’s intent to
impose nonjudicial punishment for violating AFI 65-104 between 1 Aug 98
and 18 Mar 99 by wrongfully failing to pay the balance on his American
Express Government Travel Card’s monthly statement in full, and allowing
the card account to become delinquent in the amount of $1435.95. The
applicant was advised of his rights in the matter.
On 5 Apr 99, after consulting counsel, the applicant waived his right to
demand trial by court-martial, accepted nonjudicial proceedings, elected
to make a personal appearance before his commander and submitted a
written presentation.
On 6 Apr 99, after taking into consideration the matters raised by the
applicant in his defense, extenuation or mitigation, the commander
determined the applicant had committed one or more of the offenses
alleged and imposed punishment in the form of a reduction in grade to
senior airman, and 30 days’ extra duty. The applicant acknowledged
receipt of this action and his appeal rights. He elected not to appeal.
On 25 Jun 99, the commander suspended the reduction in grade of senior
airman imposed on 6 Apr 99, however, the commander denied the applicant’s
request to set aside the Article 15 after considering the same
information the applicant has since submitted with this petition for
relief. As a result of the foregoing, the applicant’s rank of SSgt was
restored effective 25 Jun 99.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed this case and
recommended denial. JAJM stated that the evidence submitted does not
exonerate the applicant or mandate the relief requested. JAJM did
recommend the Article 15 be amended to reflect actual dates of the
offense demonstrated by the evidence (see Exhibit C).
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28
Jan 00, for review and comment. 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. After reviewing all documents
relative to the application, it appears that an accounting and
reconciliation error occurred on the part of American Express while
processing the applicant’s government credit card payment. In view of
the totality of the circumstances of this case and the potential impact
the Article 15 could have on the applicant's Air Force career, we believe
that any doubt in this matter should be resolved in his favor and that
his records should be corrected in the following manner.
___________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the nonjudicial
punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, imposed on 6 April 1999 be set aside
and expunged from his records, and all rights, privileges and property of
which he may have been deprived be restored.
___________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 9 May 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Sep 99, with attachments.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 5 Jan 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 28 Jan 00.
DAVID W. MULGREW
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 99-02651
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A, Stat 116), it is
directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the punishment
imposed under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, on 15 April 1999,
be, and hereby is, set aside and all rights, privileges and property
of which he may have been deprived be restored.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00224 INDEX CODES: 111.02, 126.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, imposed on 16 Nov 98, be set aside and removed from his records, and that all rights, privileges, and benefits taken from him because of the Article 15 be restored. A complete copy...
In addition, the applicant was charged with having twice filed false and fraudulent claims for reimbursement for personal correspondence sent via Federal Express, both times in the amount of $12.48, in violation of Article 132. In JAJM’s view, the applicant has provided no evidence of a clear error or injustice related to the entire nonjudicial punishment action. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice regarding the...
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Article 15 is invalid because it was imposed after the 2-year statute of limitations for such; the contested OPR is also invalid because he did not work for the rater for the required 120-days of supervision; and the discharge should be upgraded due to the inconsistencies under which it was given. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letters prepared by...
In August 1993, applicant submitted a request to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) for an upgrade of his discharge to honorable. After a review of the available records, it is concluded that the applicant has not submitted a timely application upon which corrective action can be taken. We also note AFLSA/JAJM’s recommendation in which they conclude that the applicant has not submitted a timely application upon which corrective action can be taken.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03591
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03591 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His grade of senior airman (E-4) be reinstated. On 21 January 2003, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment on him under Article 15, UCMJ. After reviewing the applicant’s submission and the evidence of...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03509
The applicant acknowledges in her application, as well as her responses to the Article 15, that she told her supervisor that she was having nasal surgery that, at the time, she knew was false. They provide information regarding the applicant’s original date of rank as a staff sergeant should the Board want to grant the relief requested. To date, a response has not been received.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00893
On 14 Oct 01, the applicant’s commander told him his request for clemency was denied. A member accepting nonjudicial punishment proceedings may have a hearing with the commander. If the commander did not have the authority to impose the punishment, as in this case, the immediate commander should recommend suspending, mitigating, remitting, or setting aside the action to the next superior commander who is empowered to impose such a punishment.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-03039
On 15 Sep 99, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment on him under Article 15, UCMJ. JAJM stated that a set aside should only be granted when the evidence demonstrates an error or a clear injustice. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPASC states that, if and only if, the applicant’s request is approved, they would recommend removal of the job entry titled, “Commander, HQ Squadron Section” from his duty history and...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02844
The applicant has provided no evidence of a clear error or injustice related to the nonjudicial punishment action. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
Counsel’s complete reconsideration request is at Exhibit H. The ROP did reflect the correct date (21 March 1994) of the meeting with the rater, additional rater, the applicant and his wife in the Statement of Facts section, and also indicated in the summary of the legal evaluation that the pertinent date used in the AFLSA/JAJM advisory (21 May 1994) was incorrect. The applicant claimed no unauthorized disclosure of confidential information during the original inquiry and presented no...