RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03942 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

a. His Article 15 and all punishments involved be expunged. 

 

b. His three years of lost time be returned. 

 

c. One year of not being allowed to test rewarded. 

 

d. Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) ending Aug 06 and Oct 
07 be removed and voided. 

 

e. He be considered for promotion to the grade of technical 
sergeant (TSgt) for 2009 technical sergeant (E6) promotion cycle. 

 

f. He be considered for a follow-on assignment to Kadena, 
Yokota, Bitburg, or Spangdahlem. 

 

g. He be considered for a Permanent Change of Station (PCS) 
medal. 

 

h. He be given a floor to speak with the Air Force Inspector 
General about his issues. 

 

i. A board convenes when punishments of this nature are handed 
down. 

 

j. The three years of lost time it has taken to correct his 
records be returned. 

__________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Since Nov 06, he has been seeking assistance to have a “wrong set 
right”; the evidence logically reviewed a reprisal set right. 

 

He was secretly given a “4” EPR without justification. He 
believes his original EPR ending 6 Aug 06 was a “5” and was 
signed by his supervisor. However, the date was changed to 
15 Aug 06 which he believes is an injustice. 

 

The issue has put his life in limbo and his career on hold. He 
is not asking for anyone to be punished or get in trouble but 
asking for a resolution or an end. 

 


He has consulted with various first sergeants, legal counselors, 
peers and other wing agencies (Military Equal Opportunity, Area 
Defense Counsel and chain of command). He has also written his 
Congresswoman and Inspector General Offices. Key information was 
not submitted during the processing of his Article 15. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a 14 page 
statement with attachments discussing the events leading to the 
Article 15, military service records and a Freedom of Information 
Act (FOIA) request. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force in the grade 
of technical sergeant. 

 

On 7 Feb 07, the applicant visited the MEO office because he felt 
his flight commander, Captain J, was picking on him and had given 
him a letter of counseling (LOC) for unfounded acts. He stated 
that no matter what he Captain J always found fault in it.” In 
addition, Captain J has anger issues and sometimes “flies off the 
handle.” The applicant was asked if his concerns with Captain J 
fell within the MEO purview and he stated he did not feel they 
did at that time. 

 

According to the MEO Record of Assistance dated 13 Feb 07, the 
MEO technician conducted a follow-up session with the applicant. 
The applicant stated he was receiving assistance from the lowest 
level to address his concerns. Further, the applicant expressed 
he had no concerns surrounding reprisal. No additional follow-up 
was required and the MEO technician closed his case 

 

On 9 Aug 07, the applicant was offered nonjudicial punishment 
under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He 
was charged with one specification of being absent without 
authority, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ, and one 
specification of disobeying a lawful order, in violation of 
Article 92, UCMJ. 

 

On 14 Aug 07, the applicant consulted counsel, waived his right 
to trial by court-martial and accepted the Article 15. He 
submitted a statement on his behalf and made a personal 
appearance before the commander. 

 

On 27 Aug 07, the commander decided the applicant had committed 
the alleged offenses and imposed punishment consisting of 
reduction to the grade of senior airman, reprimand and forfeiture 
of $1,031 pay per month for two months. The portion of 
punishment which extended to reduction in grade and forfeiture of 


pay were suspended through 26 Feb 08, at which time they were to 
be remitted without further action unless sooner vacated. On 
28 Aug 07, the applicant decided not to appeal the commander’s 
decision. On 29 Aug 07, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) and 
General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) reviewed the 
case and found it legally sufficient. 

 

On 4 Oct 07, the applicant received a referral EPR for the period 
6 Aug 06 through 3 Oct 07. 

 

On 2 Jul 08, the applicant wrote his Senator requesting his case 
be looked into from a different perspective. 

 

On 29 Jan 09, the applicant filed an Inspector General (IG) claim 
for the Article 15 he states was improperly issued. On 6 Feb 09, 
the IG notified the applicant they had completed a complaint 
analysis, were unable to assist him and were dismissing his 
complaint. 

 

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 Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to set 
aside and remove the nonjudicial punishment he received from his 
records. JAJM states, ultimately, the applicant has not raised 
any genuine doubt as to his guilt of the offenses for which he 
was punished or established any error on injustice in the Article 
15 action such that a set aside would be in the best interests of 
the Air Force. Based on the evidence presented in the case and 
considering the other factors mentioned by the applicant, the 
commander was clearly not acting in an arbitrary or capricious 
manner when he found nonjudicial punishment appropriate in this 
case. Further, the punishment imposed was appropriate to the 
offense and not unfairly harsh. 

 

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

HQ AFPC/DPAPP recommends denial of his request for reinstatement 
of a previous follow-on assignment. DPAPP states he could not 
obtain the necessary retainability due to his high year tenure 
(HYT). DPAPP further states, the member’s spouse was provided an 
overseas returnee assignment to Columbus Air Force Base, 
Mississippi and the applicant was provided a join-spouse 
assignment since their join-spouse assignment intent code 
indicated they desired to be assigned at the same location. 

 

The complete DPAPP evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 


HQ AFPC/DPSIDE did not provide a recommendation. DPSIDE 
forwarded his application to the Evaluation Report Appeals Board 
(ERAB) and they returned his request without action. In 
addition, DPSIDE stated the applicant had not provided 
substantiated evidence to justify why his Aug 06 and Oct 07 EPRs 
were unjust, inaccurate and should be removed. 

 

The complete DPSIDE evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSOE makes no recommendation but addresses the promotion 
eligibility/testing issue. DPSOE states the applicant was 
eligible and tested on 23 Mar 07 for promotion to the grade of 
(E6) during cycle 07E6. However, he became ineligible in Aug 
when he received an Article 15 for being absent without leave 
(AWOL) and disobeying a lawful order. His punishment consisted 
of a suspended reduction to the grade of senior airman, suspended 
forfeiture of $1,031 pay per month for two months and a 
reprimand. He also received a referral EPR for the period 6 Aug 
06 through 3 Oct 07. The suspended bust and referral EPR 
rendered him ineligible for promotion cycle 07E6. He remained 
ineligible for promotion consideration during cycle 08E6 as his 
nonreferral EPR (3 Oct 08) did not close out until after the 
promotion eligibility cutoff date (31 Dec 07) for that cycle. 
The applicant was considered and nonselected for promotion to 
E6 during cycle 09E6; however, he became a select during cycle 
10E6 with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Apr 10. 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit F. 

 

HQ AFPC/DPTOS did not provide a recommendation. DPTOS states 
upon review of the member’s records, the applicant has no lost 
time in the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS). 

 

The complete DPTOS evaluation is at Exhibit G. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

With regard to his request to remove and void the EPRs from Aug 
06 and Oct 07, the applicant states he cannot submit anything to 
the ERAB without having first corrected the Article 15, because 
the 07 EPR hinges solely on the decision regarding the Article 
15. 

 

With regard to his request to reinstate his previous follow-on 
assignment choices, the applicant states the decision to deny his 
follow-on based on high year of tenure (HYT) is arbitrary and was 
very suspicious after the repeated number of requests sent to 
AFPC for three months, and the amount of phone calls with no 
response. 

 

With regard to his request for award of a PCS medal, the 
applicant states if his record at the time of his PCS did not 


reflect the 3 and 4 EPRs then maybe he would have been awarded 
the PCS medal. 

 

With regard to his request to have lost time returned, the 
applicant states he is referring to the years it has taken him in 
the process of getting his records corrected. He has lost time 
in not being able to test. All his hard work was torn down by 
favoritism, fraternization and in his opinion hatred. 

 

The applicant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit I. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an error or injustice to warrant 
setting aside the applicant’s Article 15. After a thorough 
review of the evidence of record and the applicant's complete 
submission, to include his multiple responses to the Air Force 
evaluations, we do not find his uncorroborated assertions 
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by 
the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR). Therefore 
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of HQ Air 
Force/AFLOA and adopt its rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or 
injustice regarding this issue. The applicant requests his EPR 
ending 5 Aug 06 be removed from his record. However, we note 
the ERAB denied his request due to a lack of evidence. After 
carefully reviewing the evidence provided, we too find 
insufficient evidence that would warrant removal of the 
contested report. We also considered his request to remove the 
EPR closing 3 Oct 07 from his record. Again, we find 
insufficient evidence that would warrant the removal of this 
report, particularly in view of our finding related to the 
Article 15 he received. The applicant requests he be granted a 
PCS award. However, AFI 36-2803 clearly states, “No individual 
is automatically entitled to an award upon completion of an 
operational TDY or departure for an assignment.” Based on our 
findings related to the Article 15 and EPRs, we find no error or 
injustice in his not receiving an award upon PCS. Additionally, 
we also do not find a basis to grant his request for promotion 
consideration to the grade of technical sergeant or to reinstate 
the follow-on assignment he was previously granted. In view of 
the above, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the 
Air Force OPRs (AFPC/DPSIDR, DPAPP, DPSIDE, and DPSOE) and adopt 
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant 
has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We also note 
the applicant requests a floor to speak with the Air Force 


Inspector General and his suggestion to convene boards for other 
similarly situated, these are not requests that fall within the 
purview of the Board. In the absence of persuasive evidence to 
the contrary, 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 the Board's 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 Docket Number BC-
2010-03942 in Executive Session on 25 Oct 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-03942 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Oct 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. AFLOA/JAJM, Letter, dated 26 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit D. AFPC/DPAPP, Letter, dated 4 May 11. 

 Exhibit E. AFPC/DPSIDE, Letter, dated 2 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit F. AFPC/DPSOE, Letter, dated 16 Jun 11 

 Exhibit G. AFPC/DPTOS, Letter, dated 28 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit H. SAF/MRBC, Letter, dated 18 Aug 11. 

 Exhibit I. Applicant’s Letter, dated 17 Sep 11. 

 

 

 

 

 
Panel Chair