RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01038
INDEX NUMBER: 126.04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, imposed on
22 January 1999, be set aside and that all references to the Article
15 action be expunged from his record.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He does not deny he made an error in judgment on 29 December 1998,
when he made a false official statement indicating he had
administered an Enlistment Screening Test to a recruit prior to
sending him to the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS). He
believes he was set up when he was ordered to fax a written
statement within a specified time period as to when the test was
administered and the score received. He called his supervisor and
told him he lied and had not administered the test. Because he
revealed his false official statement before he was investigated,
the decision to impose Article 15 punishment was unduly severe. He
did deserve administrative action, but believes he was targeted
with pointless Letters of Reprimand (LORs) and Letters of
Admonishment (LOAs) as a basis for Article 15 punishment at a later
date. He was told that the decision to punish him by Article 15
instead of by an LOR was because previous LORs and LOAs had not
been effective. His commander told him he did not remember
receiving his rebuttals to the LORs and the LOAs prior to making
his decision to impose Article 15 punishment. His rebuttals to the
LORs and LOAs were removed. He was given the most severe
punishment after he provided a statement against his supervisor,
who had ordered a recruit to conceal medical evidence.
His complete submission, which includes nine attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 22 January 1999, as a staff sergeant, the applicant was punished
under Article 15 for making a false official statement, to wit:
that he administered an Enlistment Screening Test to a recruit
prior to sending him to the MEPS, which statement was totally
false, and was then known by him to be false.
Punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of senior airman and
forfeiture of $100 pay for two months; however, the reduction in
grade was suspended until 21 April 1999, after which time it was
remitted.
The applicant consulted counsel; waived his right to court-martial;
and accepted nonjudicial proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ. He
did not appeal.
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
technical sergeant.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Associate Chief, Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM,
recommended denial. After reviewing the evidence and the
applicant’s submissions, the commander found he had committed the
offense alleged. The punishment imposed was lawful. The applicant
provided no evidence of a clear error or injustice related to the
nonjudicial punishment proceedings. He agrees that action was
appropriate but differs on the degree of action taken. JAJM’s
complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 July
2001, for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by 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. The
applicant provided a false official statement. After considering
the evidence and the applicant’s submissions, the commander imposed
punishment under Article 15. The applicant agrees that punishment
was appropriate but disagrees with the degree of punishment.
However, in our view, the commander was in the best position to
evaluate the evidence. We have seen no evidence from the applicant
that would lead us to believe that the commander abused his
discretionary authority when he determined that the applicant had
committed the offense charged and when he decided the nature and
degree of punishment. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we agree with the recommendation of the Associate Chief,
Military Justice Division, and adopt the rationale expressed as the
basis for our decision to deny the application.
___________________________________________________________________
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 9 October 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 April 2001, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 22 June 2001.
Exhibit D. Letters, SAF/MIBR, dated 6 July 2001.
PEGGY E. GORDON
Panel Chair
His former Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of 3P051 be reinstated. However, if the Board recommends the applicant’s rank of E-4 be restored, they recommend changing his RE code to 3K (i.e., Reserved for use by HQ AFPC or the AFBCMR when no other reenlistment eligibility code applies or is appropriate). Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the nonjudicial punishment, initiated on 22 July 1999 and imposed on 30 July 1999, was improper.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01294 INDEX CODE 126.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Article 15 action and the punishment imposed on 7 Jun 01, be set aside. Applicant's profile for the last 6 reporting periods follows: Period Ending Evaluation 26 Jun 96 5 - Immediate Promotion 26 Jun 97 5 28 Jun 98 5 28 Jun 99 5 28...
The two staff sergeants, whose reductions in rank were approved, obtained their rank of staff sergeant by virtue of cheating for which they were punished. After considering the integrity offense the applicant committed, it is consistent that the members concluded he was not fit to be a noncommissioned officer and sentenced him to be reduced to the grade of E-4, senior airman. AFLSA/JAJM complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. In addressing the promotion and testing issues,...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00757 (Case 2) INDEX CODE: 133.00, 133.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The 1998 Article 15, UCMJ, nonjudicial punishment imposed, demotion from master sergeant (E-7) to technical sergeant (E-6), be set aside; and, that his retired grade be immediately restored to E-7. ...
Period Ending Evaluation 4 Mar 94 5 - Immediate Promotion 22 Sep 94 5 8 Aug 95 5 * 2 Nov 95 3 - Consider for Promotion 2 Nov 96 5 15 Nov 97 5 26 Jun 98 5 1 Nov 98 5 * Contested referral report On 23 October 1995, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) for committing the following offenses: making a false official statement to his squadron commander regarding the amount of funds in his bank account; presenting false official documents...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01516
On 12 Feb 02, the applicant was notified of his squadron commander’s intent to recommend an other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge for a pattern of misconduct based on the SCM finding, the Article 15 and the LOR. On 14 Feb 02, the applicant requested an administrative discharge board and lengthy service consideration by the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF). After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the Article 15...
On 12 Feb 02, the applicant was notified of his squadron commander’s intent to recommend an other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge for a pattern of misconduct based on the SCM finding, the Article 15 and the LOR. On 14 Feb 02, the applicant requested an administrative discharge board and lengthy service consideration by the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF). The applicant’s area defense counsel (ADC) submitted materials for consideration; however, on 25 Mar 02, the 11th Air Force...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-02126 INDEX CODE 126.02 126.04 111.02 111.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Article 15 imposed on 11 May 00 be voided, his record be expunged, and leave be restored to his account. According to the personnel data system, his Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) from 1995 through 24 Oct...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01407
Thus taken alone, the specification in the Air Force Form 3070, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings, would be insufficient under the UCMJ to provide notice to the applicant of the nature of the charged offense. JAJM states that while the wording of the Article 15 specification was inadequate and should not be countenanced, the deficiency cause neither a material error or injustice because the applicant was nevertheless informed of the nature of the charged offense, the...
On 19 May 1997, the applicant's commander notified him that he was considering whether he (commander) should punish the applicant under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) . That action also set aside the punishment imposed on 4 June 1997. It appears that when the applicant was acquitted of the DWI charge by the civilian court, a request was made to the commander to set aside the Article 15 action.