ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03341
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests that the Board
reconsider the following original requests:
a. Set aside the Article 15 that he received on 18 May 00.
b. Restore him to the grade of sergeant (E-4) with a date of rank
(DOR) of 11 Feb 96 with all backpay.
c. He be allowed to retain his selection for promotion to staff
sergeant which he earned prior to being punished by Article 15.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
ON 25 April 2000, The applicant was offered nonjudicial punishment for
conduct in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ),
Article 92, failure to obey an order, Article 128, assault, and Article
134, indecent language. The allegations came about as a result of an
investigation into allegation of sexual harassment during a deployment to
Bosnia-Herzegovina. The applicant was alleged to have violated the order
of an NCO to stop bothering a female airman. He was also alleged to have
assaulted the airman by touching her on her hair, back, and buttocks with
his hands on 21 Oct 99. Finally, the applicant is alleged to have told the
airman words to the effect of “you know you want that foreign dick” in
response to her complaints that foreign military men were gawking at her.
On 4 May 2000, after consulting with military defense counsel, the
applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment proceeding rather than demand
trial by court-martial. He submitted a written presentation for his
commander to consider. After reviewing the evidence and the applicant’s
submissions, the commander determined the applicant did not commit the
offense under Article 92, but did commit the assault and indecent language
offenses. On 18 May 2000, the commander imposed a punishment consisting of
a reduction to the grade of Airman, a suspended reduction to the grade of
Airman Basic and a reprimand. The applicant appealed the punishment on 24
May 2000. The appellate authority denied the appeal on 12 June 2000.
On 2 August 2001, the applicant’s requests were considered and denied by
the AFBCMR. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding
the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit
F.
The applicant submitted a request for reconsideration based on a statement
he obtained from the individual that made the complaint against him for
which he was punished by Article. The applicant’s complete submission is
at Exhibit G.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in support
of the appeal, we remain unpersuaded that the punishment imposed on the
applicant was erroneous or unjust. While we note that the victim of the
actions for which the applicant was punished thinks that his punishment was
unfair and states that she did not file the complaint that led to his
punishment, she does not state unequivocally that the applicant did not
commit the offenses. While the victim may not agree with the punishment
received by the applicant, this does not mean that the commander’s actions
were wrong. The responsibility to decide the type and scope of punishment
rests with the commander. The Article 15 appellate authority considered
her sentiments before making his decision to deny the applicant’s appeal of
the punishment. In light of the above, we find no basis on which to
favorably consider the requested relief.
_________________________________________________________________
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 16 January 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Gregory Petkoff, Panel Chair
Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member
Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 17 August 2001,
with Exhibits.
Exhibit G. Applicant’s Letter, undated, w/atchs.
GREGORY PETKOFF
Panel Chair
On 1 May 1995, the applicant’s commander found that he did commit one or more of the offenses alleged and imposed the following punishment: reduction to the grade of senior airman, with a new date of rank of 1 May 1995, and forfeiture of $661.00 pay. The JA then dismissed the case and recommended an Article 15 be done instead. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00247
On 1 May 1995, the applicant’s commander found that he did commit one or more of the offenses alleged and imposed the following punishment: reduction to the grade of senior airman, with a new date of rank of 1 May 1995, and forfeiture of $661.00 pay. The JA then dismissed the case and recommended an Article 15 be done instead. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not...
Lastly, while the applicant contends his commander improperly considered his two prior Article 15s in determining an appropriate punishment, the commander denied this in a written statement to the applicant’s defense counsel. After noting this statement, a majority of the Board finds no reason to believe the commander improperly considered applicant’s two prior Article 15s in determining an appropriate punishment based on applicant’s unofficial use of government e-mail. THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03699
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03699 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Any commander would normally consider such statements during Article 15 proceedings because they were relevant and clearly showed that any exposure was due to the pants falling down which in turn was caused by the assault. These statements were not provided to the squadron commander, the applicant, or...
He was selected for promotion to SSgt prior to receiving punishment by Article 15. The applicant further states that he filed an inspector general (IG) complaint based on two issues: that he did not receive all of the evidence used against him and the investigation done was flawed and that the IO paraphrased or “summarized” witness statements in a way that was misleading in order to make a case against him. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the...
Lastly, while the applicant contends his commander improperly considered his two prior Article 15s in determining an appropriate punishment, the commander denied this in a written statement to the applicant’s defense counsel. In the opinion of the majority of the Board, the applicant has not provided any evidence showing that the commander abused his discretionary authority in imposing the Article 15 punishment, that the punishment was too harsh, or that the commander considered...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03153 INDEX CODE: 126 COUNSEL: JULIE K. HASDORFF HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: An Article 15, dated 22 Aug 96, an Article 15, dated 6 Sep 96, and, a Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment, dated 4 Nov 96, be set aside. The defense counsel claims that the legal office recommended to the commander...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2011-05044
The Article 15 she received on 5 April 2007 be removed from her records. The commander however, did find the violation of Article 92 as substantiated. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends a partial grant since the issuing commander found sufficient evidence did not exist to substantiate the three alleged violations of Article 134, UCMJ.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00246
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00246 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 28 JUL 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded. On 24 Dec 03, applicant was discharged pursuant to the General Court-Martial Order, with a bad conduct discharge. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02600
On 16 May 07, the applicant appealed the action to the imposing commander and to the appeal authority. As a member accepting nonjudicial punishment proceedings, the applicant had the right to have a hearing with the commander, to request that witnesses appear and testify, and to present evidence. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material...