RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00707 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her Article 15, nonjudicial punishment (NJP), and all actions 
associated with the punishment be removed; she be reinstated to 
active duty with her original date of rank; and her reentry (RE) 
code be changed to one that would allow her to return to military 
service. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Her involuntary separation was due in part to the Article 15 she 
received for falling asleep on post while she was deployed. She 
had ongoing medical issues (Bronchitis and Pneumonia) for which 
she was prescribed medication that caused drowsiness, along with 
the fact she was on prescribed depression medication which 
intensified the drowsiness. Her supervisors knew she was ill and 
on medication and she feels this was not taken into account. She 
should not have accepted the Article 15, but she was ill and just 
wanted to return home. Had she known she was going to be 
separated, she would not have accepted the Article 15 and would 
have requested a trial by court-martial. 

 

At the time, she could not have an Area Defense Council (ADC) in 
person; therefore, all communications had to be by e-mail or over 
the phone with an ADC at Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany. Her 
commander did not serve her the Article 15 as he was on leave; 
therefore, the Officer-In-Charge for Force Protection gave it to 
her. She served honorably with no military blemishes on her 
record until she received the Article 15. In September 2006, her 
supervisor had recommended her for reenlistment under the 
Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP). 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of her DD 
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; 
NJP action; written presentation to NJP action; electronic 

communications with ADC; selection for reenlistment; a letter of 
appreciation; three character references; and medical records. 

 


The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who was 
trained as an Aerospace Propulsion Journeyman and was 
progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4). In 
late 2006, she was deployed to Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait to 
fill a Third Country National escort position. On 5 January 
2007, while on post as a sentinel at a construction site, the 
applicant was found sleeping. On 16 January 2007, she was 
offered NJP for sleeping on post in violation of Article 113, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). On 17 January 2007, 
after consulting with counsel, she waived her right to demand 
trial by court-martial, accepted NJP, and submitted a written 
presentation. The applicant’s commander determined she committed 
the alleged offense and imposed a punishment consisting of a 
reduction in grade to airman first class (E-3) with a new date of 
rank of 17 January 2007, a suspended forfeiture of $403.00 pay, 
and a reprimand. The applicant elected not to appeal her 
commander’s decision and two legal reviews of the Article 15 
action determined it was legally sufficient. 

 

On 15 July 2007, the applicant was notified that her Enlisted 
Performance Report (EPR) for the period 15 July 2006 through 
14 July 2007 was being referred. She acknowledged receipt of the 
notification and chose not to provide comments regarding the 
referral EPR. 

 

The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile: 

 

 PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 

 

 14 Jul 03 (A1C) 4 

 14 Jul 04 (SrA) 4 

 14 Jul 05 5 

 14 Jul 06 5 

 14 Jul 07* (A1C) 3 

 

* Contested report 

 

On 1 August 2007, the applicant was honorably discharged from 
active duty under the Fiscal Year 2007 (FY07) Enlisted Date-of-
Separation (DOS) Rollback Program. She was selected for the 
rollback based on her RE code of “2X” (First-term, second-term, 
or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment 


under the SRP). She served 5 years, 8 months, and 18 days on 
active duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s requests 
pertaining to the Article 15. JAJM states the applicant has not 
shown a clear error or injustice. She does not dispute that she 
fell asleep on post and does not contest her commander’s 
findings. Her assertions as to her medical condition and 
medication are supported by the record, and would appear to 
explain why she may have been susceptible to falling asleep on 
post on 5 January 2007. However, she had the opportunity to 
present to her commander this and any other evidence she deemed 
relevant, and to consult with her counsel prior to presenting 
such evidence. Indeed, after consulting with her counsel, the 
applicant specifically addressed relevant aspects of her medical 
condition and medication in her written presentation to her 
commander. The commander acknowledged in Block 4 of the Air 
Force Form 3070, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings, 
that he considered the evidence before him, including any matters 
presented by the applicant, in determining whether an offense 
occurred, and imposing an appropriate punishment. The commander 
was in the best position to carefully weigh all of the evidence 
while that evidence was fresh. The commander was also in the 
best position to make informed findings of fact, and arrive at a 
suitable punishment. If the applicant believed the commander’s 
decision was in error or unjust, her recourse was to appeal to 
the next higher commander. She did not avail herself of the 
opportunity to appeal to the next higher commander, despite now 
complaining that her squadron commander was on leave at the time 
of the Article 15 proceedings. 

 

JAJM indicates the punishment imposed was within legal limits. 
Reduction in grade, suspended forfeitures and a reprimand were 
authorized, and were deemed by her commander to be an appropriate 
punishment for a serious offense involving the safety and 
security of forces in a deployed environment. She demonstrates 
no prejudice from consulting with her counsel by telephone or e-
mail, rather than in person. Likewise, she demonstrates no 
prejudice resulting from imposition of the Article 15 punishment 
by an acting commander while the squadron commander was on leave. 

 

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOS provides their evaluation for information only. DPSOS 
states the applicant’s discharge was correctly administered based 


upon her RE code of “2X.” She was separated under the FY07 
Enlisted DOS Rollback Program with a Separation Program 
Designator (SPD) code of “JBK” (Completion of required active 
service) in accordance with Military Personnel Flight (MPF) 
Memorandum 07-06, dated 26 January 2007. 

 

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change 
her RE code. DPSOA states that after reviewing the applicant’s 
records, they found no Air Force Form 418, Selective Reenlistment 
Program Consideration. However, a review of the Military 
Personnel Data System, indentifies her in Assignment Availability 
Code (AAC) “10” (Denied Reenlistment effective until the member 
separates); Promotion Eligibility Code (PEC) “J” (Denied 
Reenlistment); an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) with a 
16 January 2009 expiration date; and RE code “2X.” Additionally, 
she received an Article 15, dated 16 January 2007. Although 
there is no AF Form 418 on file, the applicant’s record does 
indicate one was accomplished by her commander non-selecting her 
for reenlistment. 

 

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE defers to the recommendations by AFLOA/JAJM and 
AFPC/DPSOA. Should the Board remove the Article 15 and allow her 
reentry onto active duty, her rank would be senior airman with a 
DOR of 28 April 2004. 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit F. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 4 December 2009 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. We 


find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly 

reviewing the documentation applicant submitted in support of her 

appeal, we do not believe she has suffered from an injustice. 
Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe 
the nonjudicial punishment, initiated on 16 January 2007 and 
imposed on 17 January 2007 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 she was 
entitled. She was represented by counsel, waived her 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 she had 
committed the alleged offense and imposed punishment. The 
applicant has not provided any evidence showing the imposing 
commander or the reviewing authority abused their discretionary 
authority; her substantial rights were violated during the 
processing of the Article 15 punishment; or the punishment 
exceeded the maximum authorized by the UCMJ. Therefore, we agree 
with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in 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-2009-00707 in Executive Session on 11 March 2010, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 


The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2009-00707 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Feb 08, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 5 May 09. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 28 Sep 09, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 26 Oct 09. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 30 Oct 09. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Dec 09. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair