RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03080
INDEX CODE: 133.03, 114.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. She be restored to the grade of staff sergeant with an effective date
and date of rank of 1 Oct 01.
2. It appears she is requesting that the reference to action under the
Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) be removed from her Enlisted
Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 5 Apr 01 through 7 May 02
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was provided squadron funded TDY orders to attend a medical appointment
at Landstul GE from 8 - 9 Apr 02, but was determined to be AWOL for not
being at Stuttgart on the 8 Apr 02. Her TDY request was signed off by her
command, she filed a travel voucher and was reimbursed for the 2-day
appointment, but was still deemed AWOL.
On 29 Apr 02, she was reduced in rank to the grade of sergeant with a
forfeiture of $200 pay per month for 2 months. Upon her arrival at her new
duty station her new commander issued supplementary UCMJ action and
restored her to the grade of staff sergeant with a new date of rank of 29
Aug 02.
In support of her request, applicant provided a copy of her travel orders,
her travel voucher summary, email communiqués, letters of support, her
Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings, and her Record of
Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ. Her complete submission, with
attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 7
Dec 95. She was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Nov 01.
On 19 Apr 02, the applicant was notified by her commander of her intent to
recommend nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ for failure
to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty on 8 Apr 02.
The applicant had a medical appointment at Landstuhl Regional Medical
Center at 0930 on Tuesday, 9 Apr 02. Because she is stationed at
Stuttgart, a 2-hour drive away, she requested permission from her
supervisor to leave on Monday, 8 Apr 02, and stay overnight. According to
her supervisor, he granted the request after informing her she would be
required to work Monday morning and leave Monday afternoon. According to
the applicant and a witness to a conversation between her and the
supervisor, she stated she would be out of the office all day on both
Monday and Tuesday. She did not go to work at all on Monday, 8 Apr 02.
She was advised of her rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of
the notification on 24 Apr 02. After consulting counsel, the applicant
waived her right to demand trial by court-martial, accepted Article 15
proceedings, and provided a written presentation to her commander. On 29
Apr 02, after consideration of all the facts, her commander determined that
she committed one or more of the offenses alleged and imposed punishment on
the applicant. She was reduce in grade to senior airman with a date of
rank of 29 Apr 02, ordered to forfeit $200 pay per month for 2 months and
was reprimanded. The portion of her punishment which required forfeiture
of pay was suspended until 28 Oct 02. The applicant appealed her
punishment to USAFE/CV. Her appeal was denied.
On 29 Aug 02, her commander of her new unit mitigated the portion of her
nonjudicial punishment which called for reduction to senior airman to:
forfeiture of $700 pay per month for 2 months. Forfeitures in excess of
$400 pay per 2 months, suspended through 28 Feb 03.
The applicant's EPR profile is as follows:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
7 May 03 5
7 May 02 2 - Contested Report
4 Apr 01 5
4 Apr 00 5
4 Apr 99 5
4 Apr 98 5
4 Apr 97 4
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states applicant's complaint lies not
in the process, but in the result. By electing to resolve the allegation
in the nonjudicial forum she placed the responsibility to decide whether
she committed the offense with her commander. The commander had to weigh
all the evidence before her to make her decision and ultimately resolved
the issue against the applicant. The appellate authority agreed and
provided the applicant no relief. The applicant should not prevail absent
clear error or injustice. When evidence of an error or injustice is
missing, it is clear the BCMR process is not intended to second-guess the
appropriateness of field commanders. Congress and the Secretary have
designated the commander and the appeal authority the responsibility for
determining the appropriateness of an otherwise lawful punishment. As long
as they are acting within the scope of authority granted, their judgment
should not be disturbed just because others might disagree. The evidence
presented by the applicant is insufficient to warrant setting aside the
Article 15 action and does not demonstrate an equitable basis for relief.
The JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial. DPPPE states while the reduction portion of
the applicant's Article 15 was mitigated, the comment made on the EPR
referencing her receiving an Article 15 is still a valid statement as the
Article 15 itself was not set aside. A report is considered an accurate
assessment when written unless documentation is provided proving otherwise.
DPPPE found no inaccuracies in the contested report. The DPPPE evaluation
is at Exhibit D.
AFPC/DPPPWB states should the Board set aside the Article 15 and restore
her rank to staff sergeant with her original date of rank of 1 Oct 01, she
would become eligible for promotion consideration to technical sergeant for
cycle 04E6. Should the Board remove the contested EPR, no supplemental
promotion consideration would be necessary since the EPR was not used in
past cycles. The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 9
Jan 04 for review and comment within 30 days. 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 an injustice. While we do not find that the evidence
presented is sufficient to exonerate the applicant of any guilt with
respect to the offense for which the nonjudicial punishment was imposed, we
do believe there are mitigating circumstances present which lead us to
believe the punishment imposed was excessively harsh. There is some
indication that the applicant's decision to depart her duty location may
have been the result of an honest misunderstanding. In light of this and
in consideration of her previous and subsequent record of outstanding
performance, we believe some relief is appropriate in this case. While we
do not find removal of the Article 15 from the record fitting, it is our
opinion that suspension of the punishment would be an appropriate form of
relief based on the evidence provided. We note that the applicant
requested her grade be restored with a date of rank and effective date of 1
Oct 01. However, since a review of her grade history in the Personnel Data
System reflects that her original promotion was actually on 1 Nov 01, it is
our opinion that she should be restored to staff sergeant on that date.
Accordingly, we do so recommend.
4. Regarding her request that her EPR be abolished with regards to her
Article 15 action, we do not find her assertions sufficiently persuasive to
warrant a change to the contested EPR. In this respect, since we do not
find removal of the Article 15 in it's entirety appropriate, we are
inclined to agree with the Air Force office of primary responsibility that
the comment referencing the Article 15 and the assigned ratings remain
valid. We are not persuaded by the evidence presented that the contested
report is not an accurate depiction of her performance and demonstrated
potential for the period in question. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider
that portion of her request.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 29 August 2002, that portion of
the nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, imposed on her on 29
April 2002, which provided for reduction in grade from staff sergeant (E-5)
to senior airman (E-4), was set aside thereby restoring her to the grade
of staff sergeant (E-5), with a date of rank and effective date of
1 November 2001.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-
03080 in Executive Session on 31 Mar 04, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Sep 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 31 Oct 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 1 Dec 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 15 Dec 03.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jan 04.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AFBCMR BC-2003-03080
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 on 29 August 2002, that
portion of the nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, imposed on
her on 29 April 2002, which provided for reduction in grade from staff
sergeant (E-5) to senior airman (E-4), was set aside thereby restoring her
to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), with a date of rank and effective
date of 1 November 2001.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-04076
In this case, the commander concluded that the applicant had assaulted his wife. Finally, although the actions taken against the applicant may have been instigated by his ex-wife’s allegations against him, the commander only took action after an investigation by the OSI substantiated misconduct on the applicant’s part. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03250
On 21 Jun 93, the applicant’s squadron commander notified her that he was considering whether to vacate the suspended punishment imposed on 15 Mar 93 for the alleged offenses of dereliction of duty and failure to obey a lawful general regulation. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s requests. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-03734
The Discharge Board findings substantiated the statements in the report, which make the report accurate. AFPC/DPPPWB complete evaluation is at Exhibit E. BCMR Medical Consultant indicates the mental conditions of Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Adjustment Disorder and Depressive Disorder not otherwise specified were triggered by external stressors of occupational difficulties, financial problems, and family problems. BCMR Medical Consultant complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01078
His EPR rendered for the period 6 Mar 01 through 30 Sep 01 be declared void and removed from his records; and, that the report be reaccomplished with the evaluation rewritten and considered for a senior-level indorsement by the wing commander. This reviewing commander was also the same commander to whom the appeal of the Article 15 action would have been made. In fact, the applicant provided a statement from his commander indicating that he did not receive a senior rater indorsement on his...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02534
She prepared an AF Form 3212, Record of Supplementary Action under Article 15, UCMJ, on 17 May 02, and provided it to the legal office. In his commander's response she states that she had all of the facts in front of her for the first time and was told by the wing commander that she could let him test for staff sergeant. However, the legal office was incorrect in that determinations of "unusual circumstances" or "the best interests of the Air Force" are made by commanders, not lawyers.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00084 (CASE 3) INDEX CODES: 111.02, 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 7 Jan 92 through 6 Jan 93 be declared void and removed from her records. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT...
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-01543
His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 30 Jan 03, be removed from his records. We note that regardless of his commander's action, the court-martial conviction and referral EPR rendered him ineligible for promotion. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the close-out date of his AF Form 910, Enlisted...