RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03895 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1 The nonjudical punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), imposed on 21 May 10, be 
removed from his records. 

 

2. His reentry (RE) code of 2C (Entry-level separation) be 
removed. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The event which led to his separation was unjustly dealt with. 
His wingman came to him with a problem concerning school and, 
against his better judgment, he loaned his academic materials to 
him. He was taught never to leave a wingman behind which 
clouded his actions. He regrets what he has done and will never 
do it again. The punishment rendered was unjust. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides an expanded 
statement. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted 
in the Regular Air Force on 28 Dec 09 in the grade of airman 
basic (E-1). 

 

On 13 May 10, the applicant was notified by his commander of his 
intent to impose NJP under Article 15 of the UCMJ. The reason 
for the action was his dereliction in the performance of duty in 
that he willfully failed to refrain from giving the answers to 
the Block VI test on the Materials Management Course to a fellow 
airman. 

 


On 18 May 10, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant 
acknowledged receipt of the action, waived his right to court-
martial, and elected to submit a written presentation in his 
behalf. 

 

On 21 May 10, the commander determined the member committed the 
alleged offenses and imposed punishment consisting of forfeiture 
of $337.00 pay, 14 days of extra duty (suspended through 
19 Nov 10), and a reprimand. 

 

On 16 Jun 10, the applicant’s commander notified him of his 
intent to recommend his entry-level separation for entry-level 
performance or conduct in accordance with AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen. The reasons for the action 
were the applicant’s failure to attain a passing score on the 
Block VI, Unit 4 test and his willful failure to refrain from 
giving the answers to the Block VI test to a fellow airman. 

 

On 21 Jun 10, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant 
elected to submit statements in his behalf. 

 

On 25 Jun 10, the case was found legally sufficient and the 
discharge authority approved the commander’s recommendation on 
30 Jun 10. On 1 Jul 10, the applicant was furnished an entry-
level separation with uncharacterized service for entry-level 
performance and conduct and was credited with six months and 
four days of total active service. 

 

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: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice with respect to the NJP. The applicant’s 
only allegation of error or injustice is that he believes the 
punishment was unjust. However, an examination of the NJP 
action shows no error or injustice. The applicant was afforded 
all of his rights under the UCMJ, beginning with his choice to 
waive his right to a court-martial in favor of NJP proceedings. 
The commander took all the necessary steps in handling the 
action and did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. 
Furthermore, the commander was in the best position to decide 
whether an Article 15 was appropriate for the offense and he was 
also best placed to evaluate all of the evidence in the case, 
the applicant’s submission, and the effect his offense had on 
the unit’s morale, good order, and discipline. Setting aside 
the applicant’s NJP is not in the best interests of the Air 
Force and should not be granted. 

 

A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 


AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change his RE code, indicating there is no evidence of an error 
or injustice with respect to the discharge process. Airmen are 
given entry-level separation with uncharacterized service when 
separation is initiated within the first 180 days of continuous 
active service. The department of Defense (DoD) determined that 
it would be unfair to the member or the department to 
characterize a member’s limited service when such service is 
180 days or less. Based on the documentation on file in the 
master personnel records, the discharge, to include the service 
characterization, was appropriately administered and within the 
discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant has not 
provided any evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the 
processing of his discharge warranting a change to his RE code 
or character of service. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 13 May 11 for review and response within 30 days. 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit E). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 took notice 
of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of AFLOA/JAJM and the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the 
basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim 
of an error or injustice. Based on the available evidence of 
record, it appears the applicant’s nonjudicial punishment (NJP) 
and subsequent entry-level separation was consistent with the 
substantive requirements of the prescribing directives and 
within the commander’s discretionary authority. Other than his 
own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence which 
would lead us to believe his NJP or entry-level separation, to 
include the assigned Reentry (RE) code, were improper or 
contrary to the provisions of the governing directives. 
Therefore, absent persuasive evidence that appropriate 
directives were not followed, there was an abuse of 


discretionary authority, or the applicant was denied rights to 
which he was entitled, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought in this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-03895 in Executive Session on 6 Jul 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Panel Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

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

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 13 Jan 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 23 Mar 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 May 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair