RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00799 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her reduction in pay grade to airman as a result of an Article 15 
she received on 3 Jun 10, be corrected, and she be restored to 
the grade of airman first class. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Her record is unjust due to the severity of the punishment for 
the crime committed. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her 
Article 15 proceedings, a commander’s recommendation letter, a 
letter from her Area Defense Counsel (ADC), and character 
reference letters. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of 
airman (E-2), with a date of rank of 3 Jun 10. 

 

In Jan 10, the applicant failed to obey a barment order by 
bringing her husband onto the base, in violation of a barment 
order issued to him on 21 Jan 10. 

 

On 21 May 10, the applicant’s commander offered the applicant 
then an airman first class (E-3), nonjudicial punishment for 
making a false official statement to Security Forces about her 
husband being on base, in violation of Article 107, Uniform Code 
of Military Justice (UCMJ); and unlawfully assisting her husband 
to enter the installation in violation of an order barring him 
from the base, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. After 
consulting with her assigned military defense counsel, the 
applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment proceedings and waived 
her right to demand trial by court-martial. She presented 
written matters to and personally appeared before the commander, 
who, on 3 Jun 10, decided the applicant committed the alleged 
offenses. The resulting punishment consisted of reduction to the 


grade of airman, and a reprimand. The applicant appealed, and 
the appeal was denied. A legal review of the Article 15 action 
determined it was legally sufficient. 

 

The applicant received a referral Enlisted Performance Report 
(EPR), with an overall rating of “4.” 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. The applicant has not shown a 
clear error or injustice. 

 

The Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) Part V and AFI 51-202, Nonjudicial Punishment, provide for certain relief from 
nonjudicial punishment, specifically, mitigation, remission, 
suspension, and set aside. A set aside of nonjudicial punishment 
is the removal of the punishment from the record and the 
restoration of the service member’s rights, privileges, pay, or 
property affected by the punishment. Setting aside an Article 
15 action restores the member to the position held before 
imposition of the punishment, as if the action had never been 
initiated. Set aside of punishment should not routinely be 
granted. Rather, set aside is to be used strictly in the rare 
and unusual case where a genuine question about the service 
member’s guilt arises or where the best interests of the Air 
Force would be served. 

 

The applicant has not provided sufficient basis to warrant a set 
aside of the Article 15. Her current commander does not support 
the set aside and the letters included in the application 
consistently state that the applicant acknowledges what she did 
and takes responsibility for her actions. She has not raised any 
genuine doubt as to her guilt of the offenses for which she was 
punished or established any error or injustice in the Article 
15 action such that a set aside would be in the best interests of 
the Air Force. 

 

The Board should also not grant the applicant’s request to be 
restored to the grade of airman first class. The crux of her 
argument is that she admits she committed the offenses, but that 
a reduction in grade was too severe as punishment for the 
offenses. The applicant presents the opinion of her current 
commander and defense counsel; however, the applicant’s previous 
commander felt that an Article 15 and reduction in grade were the 
appropriate response to the applicant’s offenses. That commander 
was in the best position to evaluate the offenses, the 
applicant’s responses and the effect that the offenses would have 
on good order and discipline in the unit. The applicant’s case 
is not strong enough to outweigh the deference that should be 
given to the commander who was there at the time of the offense. 

 

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 


 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

JAJM is focusing on the punishment given within the Article 
15 that she received. This is not the case of injustice causing 
her to take these actions. Her current commander agreed with her 
submission for mitigation and return of her stripe; however, he 
was unable to grant mitigation due to the fact that time ran out. 
The package was submitted in Aug 10, which gave squadron 
leadership plenty of time to review, edit and submit the package 
before the commander acted on it. 

 

She is requesting either a set aside or mitigation of 
forfeitures; she knows that a set aside is rarely granted. She 
is requesting mitigation to forfeitures as she is the sole 
provider for four family members. She knows forfeitures are 
still a loss of money; however, it will result in less money 
being taken out. Given all of the letters supporting her 
character and vouching for her duty performance, it is in the 
best interest of the Air Force to put her in a position to 
survive this mistake and go on to have a successful career—one 
she knows she is capable of. 

 

The applicant's complete response, with attachment, is at 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to warrant 
relief in this case. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of 
record, the majority of the Board is inclined to grant partial 
relief. After carefully weighing the evidence presented in this 
case, to include the letter from her current commander supporting 
reinstatement of the applicant’s rank of airman first class 
without pay, a majority of the Board is inclined to grant this 
portion of her request on the basis of clemency. While we 
normally give great deference to the commanders in place at the 
time, we note her current commander supported the return of her 
stripe, but was unable to complete the action within the required 
timeline to exercise his authority to do so. Accordingly, the 
majority of the Board believes it would be in the interest of 
justice to restore her original date of rank to the grade of 
airman first class without back pay. 


 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the nonjudicial 
punishment under the provision of Article 15, Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ) initiated on 21 May 2010, reducing her 
from airman first class (E-3) to airman (E-2), was suspended 
until 11 August 2011, at which time the suspension was remitted, 
and all rights, privileges and property of which may have been 
deprived were restored. 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-00799 in Executive Session on 11 Aug 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

, Panel Chair 

, Member 

, Member 

 

By a majority vote, the Board recommended approval of the 
application. xxx voted to deny the applicant’s request 
and elected not to submit a minority report. The following 
documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 5 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Apr 11, w/atch. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair