RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01514 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ) be set aside. 


 

2. He be reinstated to his former grade of master sergeant. 


 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He did not make false official statements to a senior master sergeant 
(SMSgt). His military records and signed statements from witnesses 
prove he was not part of the towing crew when the aircraft was 
damaged. He was advised by his defense counsel to accept the Article 
15, as he would only receive a fine, and that would be the end of the 
problem; he reluctantly accepted it. When he reviewed his military 
records, he noticed the false statements made by the SMSgt and towing 
crew, along with his rebuttal. He was never given a chance to make 
an official statement to his commander before the Article 15 was 
given to him. His captain was as shocked as he was when he received 
the Article 15. This situation has been a total embarrassment to him 
and his family for many years. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
rebuttal statement to the Article 15 and statements from the towing 
crew. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 16 November 1965 
and was progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant. The 
applicant retired on 30 November 1985 in the grade of technical 
sergeant after serving 20 years and 14 days of total active duty. 

 

On 17 June 1985, the applicant was notified by his commander of his 
intent to impose punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ. The reason 


for the action was he made a false official statement concerning who 
was serving as the towing supervisor during the towing of an 
aircraft. 

 

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and waived his right 
to demand trial by court-martial. On 27 June 1985, the commander 
found the applicant committed the offense alleged and imposed 
punishment consisting of a reduction to the grade of technical 
sergeant with a new date of rank of 27 June 1985. The applicant 
elected not to appeal the punishment. 

 

On 24 October 1985, the Secretary of the Air Force determined the 
applicant, then a technical sergeant, did not serve satisfactory in 
any higher grade within the meaning of Title 10, U.S.C., section 
8964. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the 
Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOE defers to the recommendation of AFLOA/JAJM regarding the 
Article 15 and restoration of the applicant’s former rank of master 
sergeant. 

 

A complete copy of the DPSOE evaluation is at exhibit D. 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states the applicant has not 
shown a clear error or injustice. Reduction in grade was an 
authorized punishment. It was deemed by the applicant’s commander to 
be an appropriate punishment for a false official statement 
concerning the circumstances surrounding damage to an aircraft. 

 

The applicant disputes his commander’s determination of guilt. He 
asserts the statements by the SMSgt were false and the other witness 
statement showed he was not a part of the towing crew. He had the 
opportunity to present extenuating or mitigating evidence to his 
commander and any other evidence he deemed relevant with advice of 
his counsel prior to presenting such evidence. The commander 
acknowledged that he considered all matters presented in defense, 
mitigation, or extenuation 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, make informed 
findings of fact, and arrive at a suitable punishment. If the 
applicant believed the commander’s decision was in error or unjust, 
his recourse was to appeal to the next higher commander, when any 
evidence he may have wished to present would have been fresh. He 
does not contend that he was prevented from presenting to his 
immediate or next higher commander any evidence he considered 
relevant or important in his defense. 

 


A complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant contends the reason he did not appeal is that he felt 
intimidated by the commander and did not want to receive any reprisal 
for questioning his decision. It was obvious the commander was out to 
get him. The reason for not appealing the Article 15 before is due 
to his previous mental state, in which he felt worthless, with lots 
of anger and mistrust. He suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder 
(PTSD) and attends weekly counseling sessions. Now that he feels 
better, he would like to correct some wrong decisions he made because 
of anger and mistrust. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law 
or regulations. 

 

2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate 
the existence of an error or injustice. We took notice of the 
applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; 
however, 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. 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. While the applicant 
alleges his commander was out to get him, the evidence of record 
reflects the commander initiated Article 15 action based on the 
investigation that underwent a legal review and was found legally 
sufficient. The Article 15 action was properly accomplished and the 
applicant was afforded all rights granted by statute and regulation. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence the information used as a basis 
for the Article 15 was erroneous, or there was an abuse of 
discretionary authority, we find no basis to recommend granting the 
relief sought in this application. 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been 
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will 
materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2010-01514 in Executive Session on December 8, 2010, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

, Panel Chair 

, Member 

, Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Apr 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 1 Jun 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 8 Jul 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jul 10. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, 9 Aug 10. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair