RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01712
INDEX CODE: 126.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Article 15 imposed on 29 August 2002 be downgraded to a Letter of
Reprimand (LOR).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The investigation was superficial; the victim made false statements
and the victim’s witness was interviewed while the applicant’s witness
was not. The legal office consulted with the opposition for
confirmation regarding conflicting information and finally, a report
existed stating that the victim’s bike was severely damaged yet no
claim was ever presented to the applicant’s insurance company.
In support of his appeal, applicant has provided copies of the witness
statements, an insurance report, two statements from the applicant to
his commander on receipt of the Article 15, a copy of the Article 15
and correspondence between the applicant and Congressman Max Sandlin,
with attachments.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant was an Airman 1st Class, stationed at Rhein-Main Air Base,
Frankfurt, Germany, on 5 August 2002 when he was involved in an
automobile accident with a German national. Applicant was offered non-
judicial punishment in lieu of trial by court martial for wrongfully
leaving the scene of an accident without identifying himself, in
violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Applicant accepted an Article 15 for said offense on 29 August 2002.
The punishment consisted of reduction in grade to Airman, suspended
until 28 February 2003 unless sooner vacated, forfeiture of $200 and
restriction to the limits of Rhein-Main Air Base for 14 days.
Applicant provided a statement to his commander for consideration in
determining applicant’s punishment. Applicant appealed the Article 15
to the appellate commander on 5 September 2002. The appeal was denied
on 6 September 2002 and subsequently found legally sufficient on 18
September 2002. The applicant, several months prior to the accident,
had been involved in a discreditable incident with German authorities
in that he was a passenger on a train and had not paid for his ticket.
When questioned, he provided a false name and even signed documents
with the false name. He was given a Letter of Reprimand for this
incident. After the automobile accident, the applicant was involved
in further misconduct while on duty that enabled his commander to
vacate the suspended reduction in grade. His commander declined to do
so and issued a second LOR instead.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLSA/JAJM found the applicant’s request to be without merit and
recommends denial. JAJM acknowledges the applicant’s claim to
additional witnesses and their statements but decry the fact that the
applicant provided no evidence to refute the claim that he did not, as
required by German law, provide the victim with identification
information following the accident. Therefore, JAJM argues that there
is no probable material error and the charge that he left the scene of
an accident without providing requisite identification information to
the victim is supported by the evidence and indeed is never disputed
by the applicant. JAJM declares that for a set-aside of the Article
15 to be granted, the evidence must demonstrate a probable material
error or injustice. The applicant’s evidence is insufficient to
provide relief in this case.
AFLSA/JAJM’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
20 June 2003 for review and comment 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 error or injustice. The evidence of record supports
the comments of the Office of the Assistant Chief, Military Justice
Division, in particular, the fact that the applicant admittedly left
the scene of an accident and failed to provide requisite
identification information prior to leaving the accident scene. We
find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing
the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's
appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice.
Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis
upon which to favorably consider this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 evidence not considered with this application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-01712 in Executive Session on 19 August 2003, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Member
Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 4 Jun 03, w/atch.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 03.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00571
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00571 INDEX CODE: 100.06 COUNSEL: JAMES W. VOLBERDING HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment code of 2X (First-term, second-term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment”), barring reenlistment be changed to 1M (Eligible to reenlist) or an equivalent code that would...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02636
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02636 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be upgraded. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFLSA/JAJM recommends the application be denied. While the applicant contends that he was immature at the time, he was almost 28 years old...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00709
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00709 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Because her approved sentence included a bad conduct discharge, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the applicant’s conviction and, on 31 October...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03183
He was punished with a letter of counseling (LOC) and an Article 15 for the same offense. Members who wish to contest their commander’s determination or the severity of the punishment imposed may appeal to the next higher commander. In reference to the applicant contending that it was a violation of his constitutional rights to get a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) before he was convicted, that he was acquitted of all prior civil charges and charged with disorderly conduct, and the civilian...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00927
At the time, he presented evidence that he weighed 231 pounds on 13 May 2003 and 205 pounds on 10 June 2003, a loss of 26 pounds. After reviewing the evidence of record, the Board finds no evidence of error related to the nonjudicial punishment proceedings. Applicant’s date of rank to staff sergeant was established as 15 August 2003, the date the commander mitigated the punishment.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00944
A member accepting non-judicial punishment proceedings may have a hearing with the imposing commander. Members who wish to contest their commander’s determination or the severity of the punishment imposed may appeal to the next higher commander. The applicant has not provided any evidence showing that the imposing commander or the reviewing authority abused their discretionary authority, that his substantial rights were violated during the processing of this Article 15 punishment, or...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03240
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He believes that the Article 15 punishment he received, that led to his eventual discharge, was excessive. As of this date, no response has been received by this office. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that at the time of...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01415
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01415 INDEX NUMBER: 126.00;111.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 5 Nov 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Article 15 imposed on him on 3 Mar 03 be set aside and removed from his record. He did on or about 10 Jan 03, with intent to deceive, make to Security Forces...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01102
On 19 Jul 04, the applicant’s squadron commander notified him he was considering whether to punish him under Article 15 for alleged offenses on or about 15 Jun 04 of dereliction of duty by willfully failing to report correct numbers on the Status of Training report and for making a false official statement. While these documents provide information regarding his perceived treatment, they provide little information directly concerning the Article 15 action, other than his reply to the LOR,...
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...