RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03430
INDEX CODE: 126.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The punishment imposed upon her under Article 15, Uniformed Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ), dated 28 May 1998, be removed from her
records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her Article 15 was given to set an example throughout the wing and her
commander’s intention was not to ruin her career. She also states
since the commander left the base shortly after, she was not allowed
the opportunity to redeem herself. She was passed over for promotion
for major and decided to separate and join the Reserves.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant, a Reservist, is currently serving on active duty in the
grade of captain.
On 28 May 1998, applicant was notified of her commander's intent to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon her for making a false official
statement, conduct unbecoming an officer and impeding an official
investigation in violation of Articles 107, 133 and 134 of the
Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
On 3 June 1998, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived her
right to a trial by court-martial, but invoked her right for a
personal appearance and to submit a written presentation.
On 8 June 1998, she was found guilty by her commander who imposed the
following punishment: forfeiture of $250.00 of pay and a reprimand.
On 15 June 1998, the applicant waived her right to appeal the
punishment. On 18 June 1998, the Article 15 was filed in a
Unfavorable Information File (UIF) and was found to be legally
sufficient.
On 8 July 1998, the senior review authority, the Commander 16 AF,
determined the Article 15 would be filed in her HQ USAF Officer
Selection Record and Officer Command Selection Record.
On 30 June 2001, the applicant was released from active duty for
nonselection for promotion and transferred to the reserves. She has
11 years, 11 months and 12 days of active duty.
Applicant’s OPR profile as a captain is listed below.
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
20 Dec 93 Meets Standards
20 Dec 94 Meets Standards
20 Dec 95 Meets Standards
15 Oct 96 Meets Standards
11 Oct 97 Meets Standards
29 Dec 98 Meets Standards
1 Oct 99 Meets Standards
20 Jun 00 Meets Standards
30 Jun 02 Meets Standards
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLSA/JAJM states Article 15s are permitted and governed by the Manual
for Courts-Martial (MCM) and AFI 51-202. This allows commanders to
dispose of certain offenses without trial by court-martial unless the
servicemember objects. 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. The servicemember then may
consult with counsel to aid in determining whether to accept the
nonjudicial punishment or demand a trial by court-martial. Acceptance
of the proceedings is a choice of forum; it is not an admission of
guilt.
The servicemember in accepting the nonjudicial punishment may have a
hearing with the commander. He may have a spokesperson at
the hearing, he may have witnesses appear and testify, and can present
evidence. The commander must consider any information presented
during the hearing and must be convinced through reliable evidence
that the servicemember committed the offense before imposing the
Article 15. The servicemember may contest their commander's
determination or severity of the punishment received and may appeal to
the next higher commander. The appeal authority may set aside the
punishment, decrease its severity, or deny the appeal.
JAJM further states that removal of an Article 15 should only be
granted when the evidence demonstrates an error or a clear injustice.
The applicant did not submit evidence that would warrant a change in
the nonjudical action nor has she submitted evidence that she was the
victim of an error or injustice. Based on evidence to the contrary,
JAJM recommends no relief be granted to have the Article 15 removed.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
19 December 2003, for review and response. 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 regarding the applicant’s request
for removal of the Article 15 imposed on 28 May 1998 from her records.
We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the
merits of the case. However, we did not find it sufficient to
override the rationale provided by AFLSA/JAJM. The evidence of record
reflects that her commander determined that she had committed the
alleged offense of making a false official statement, conduct
unbecoming an officer and impeding an official investigation, and made
the decision to impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15. We
note the applicant elected to accept nonjudicial punishment
rather than being tried by court-martial. We are not inclined to
disturb the discretionary judgment of commanding officers, who are
closer to events, absent a strong showing of abuse of that authority.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence which shows to our satisfaction
that the applicant’s substantial rights were violated, she was coerced
to waive any of her rights, or the commander who imposed the
nonjudicial punishment abused his discretionary authority, we conclude
that no basis exists to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s
request.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
2003-03430 in Executive Session on 10 February 2004, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member
Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Oct 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 3 Dec 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.
ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
Panel Chair
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-02888
In support of his request, applicant submits a personal statement, copies of the contested Article 15, the Report of Result of Trial, an Article 15, dated 13 January 2003, an AF Form 3112 (Record of Supplementary Action under Article 15, UCMJ) concerning the January 2003 Article 15 action, the Administrative Discharge Board notification and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions. He was progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant (E-7). The...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03620
The commander imposed nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ on 19 December 2002, for attempting to impede a CDI into his behavior by erasing his email traffic from his government computer; violating a lawful order by sending harassing, intimidating, abusive or offensive material; and for wrongfully having sexual intercourse with Ms. A---. The AFPC/DPPP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00882
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-00882 INDEX CODE: 126.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Article 15 be set aside so that her discharge can be upgraded so that she may qualify for Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits. The service member may then consult with a defense counsel to determine whether to accept nonjudicial...
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.
The base legal office file no longer exists and JAJM was unable to determine what evidence was provided to the commander to substantiate the offense. The applicant provided no compelling reason for the Board to favorably consider her request for immediate return to active duty (see Exhibit F). ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable...
V Air Force Review Boards Agency AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER O F : DEC 0 8 1998 DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00011 COUNSEL : HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: The Article 15s, dated 26 January 1995 and 13 February 1995, be removed from his records. The applicant claims he was exonerated and, as.a result, the Unfavorable Information File (UIF) was removed from his record but they forgot to remove the Article 15s from his record. I...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03767
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 30 May 03 for review and response. The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was given an entry level separation for misconduct as a result of his receiving an Article 15, four LORs, and counseling. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02842
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: There is insufficient evidence of a sexual relationship with SrA M__, or that he obstructed justice by allegedly asking her not to make a statement to the investigator of these charges. AFPC/DPPPE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated that...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02537
Members of the Board Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, and Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., considered this application on 2 February 2005. ROSCOE HINTON, JR Panel Chair Attachments Ltr, AFLSA/JAJM, 16 Nov 04 Ltr, AFPC/DPPPWB, dtd 10 Dec 04 AFBCMR BC-2004-02537 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and AFI 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force...