RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02193
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Article 15 imposed on 4 September 2002 and all records of disciplinary
actions on the issue, be removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He received the Article 15 due to a miscommunication.
In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a letter of recommendation
from his dorm manager who states that it was commonplace for bay orderlies
to be released to their rooms on a stand-by-status for details in the
facility, and believes the applicant had not been given clear guidelines or
misunderstood his release from bay orderly duty.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on
28 March 2001. He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first
class.
On 28 August 2002, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to
impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ) for violating Article 86 (i.e., Absent Without
Authority (AWOL)). Specifically, for absenting himself from his unit,
without authority, from 19 to 26 August 2002. After consulting legal
counsel, he waived his right to a trial by court-martial and accepted the
nonjudicial punishment. After considering the applicant’s written
submission, on 4 September 2002, the commander determined that he did
commit the alleged offense and imposed punishment consisting of reduction
to the grade of airman, restriction to Osan AB for 30 days, 30 days of
extra duty, and a reprimand. He appealed the punishment; however, his
appeal was denied.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLSA/JAJM recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that
the commander’s findings should not be disturbed unless it is shown they
were arbitrary or capricious. The commander is in the best position to
determine the appropriate course of action and still has the ability to set
aside the action. A set aside should only be granted when there is
evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant has provided no such
evidence. Unlike his behavior during the prior week, when he reported for
bay orderly duties and was turned away and returned to his duty station,
this time he interpreted that statement to mean that he should wait in his
room for a call from the dorm manager.
The AFLSA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 8 August 2003 for review and response within 30 days. However, 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. We find no evidence of error in this case
and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation applicant submitted in
support of his appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice.
Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the
nonjudicial punishment, initiated on 28 August 2002 and imposed on 4
September 2002 was improper. In cases of this nature, we are not inclined
to disturb the judgments of commanding officers absent a strong showing of
abuse of discretionary authority. We have no such showing here. The
evidence indicates that, during the processing of this Article 15 action,
the applicant was offered every right to which he was entitled. He was
represented by counsel, waived his right to demand trial by court-martial,
and submitted written matters for review by the imposing commander. After
considering the matters raised by the applicant, the commander determined
that he had committed the offense alleged and imposed punishment. He 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 the Article 15
punishment, or that the punishment exceeded the maximum authorized by the
UCMJ. 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 Docket Number BC-2003-02193
in Executive Session on 8 October 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 May 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, undated.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Aug 03.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03716
The service member in accepting the nonjudicial punishment may have a hearing with the commander. Based on the information and evidence provided, JAJM recommends the applicant's request be denied. The evidence of record reflects that her commander determined that she had committed the alleged offense of making a false official statement and leaving her place of duty without authority, and made the decision to impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01735
The applicant request the Article 15 and resultant punishment, be set aside and promotion to the grade of master sergeant, effective 1 October 2000. An Administrative Discharge Board (ADB) found that he did commit drug abuse on an experimental basis and since it was not likely to reoccur, recommended that he be retained in the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02168 INDEX CODE: 126.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 and any reprimands be removed from his records. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to his nonjudicial punishment are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air...
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-2003-00321
The applicant received 22 performance ratings for the period of 17 July 1978 through 4 January 1999. It is JAJM’s opinion that the evidence presented by the applicant is insufficient to warrant setting aside the Article 15 action. After reviewing all the evidence provided, the Board majority is not persuaded that the nonjudicial punishment, imposed on 3 February 2000, was improper.
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04070
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-04070 INDEX CODE: 126.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Applicant did not appeal the Article 15 punishment. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01717
In support of his request applicant provided, a personal statement; and documentation associated with his Article 15 punishments, his referral EPRs and appeals, and his discharge review board process. JAJM states this case presented conflicting evidence to the commander and the appellate authority at the time of the Article 15 punishment. After considering the matters raised by the applicant, the commander determined that the applicant had committed "one or more of the offenses alleged"...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03430
The commander, before imposing nonjudicial punishment, must notify the servicemember of the nature of the charged offense(s), the evidence supporting the offense, and the commander's intent to impose nonjudical punishment. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice regarding the applicant’s request for removal of the Article 15 imposed on 28 May 1998 from her records. ...
In support of his request the applicant has submitted a personal statement, several memorandums from his counsel in support of his efforts to appeal and set aside the Article 15 action, an excerpt from the Manual for Courts- Martial (MCM), his Article 15 written presentation, eyewitness statements, and an AF Form 3070, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings. As of this date, this office has received no response. The applicant has not provided any evidence showing that the imposing...