RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01181 

COUNSEL: NO 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His Article 15 be voided and removed from his records. 

 

2. His reentry (RE) code be upgraded. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He has been diagnosed with Sleep Apnea since his discharge, and 
believes his actions which led to his Article 15 were a result of 
his condition. 

 

The applicant does not provide any evidence in support of his 
appeal. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
served from 22 August 1998 to 1 October 2002. He was trained and 
served as a Security Forces Journeyman and was progressively 
promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3) effective 
14 October 2001. 

 

The applicant was honorably discharged effective 1 October 2002 
for completion of required active service. He served four years, 
five months, and ten days on active duty. 

 

On 29 November 2011, SAF/MRBR, requested the applicant provide 
copies of supporting medical documentation to confirm his 
condition of Sleep Apnea. As of this date, the applicant has not 
responded. 

 

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s 
military service records, are contained in the evaluations by the 
Air Force offices of primary responsibility at Exhibits C and D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 


 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial in regards to the applicant’s 
request to void and remove his Article 15. JAJM states the 
applicant has not shown a clear error or injustice. 

 

JAJM indicates the applicant was offered non-judicial punishment 
on 6 December 2001 by his commander, for one specification of 
failure to go to his assigned place of duty, in violation of 
Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and, one 
specification of misbehavior of a sentinel – sleeping on post, in 
violation of Article 113, UCMJ. After consulting with his 
assigned military defense counsel, the applicant accepted the 
offer of non-judicial punishment. He submitted written matters 
to his commander and requested a personal appearance. On 
14 December 2000, the commander decided the applicant had 
committed the offenses and imposed punishment consisting of ten 
days extra duty, 15 days restriction to base, a suspended 
reduction in grade of airman (E-2), and forfeiture of $200 pay. 
The applicant did not appeal the commander’s decision and a legal 
review of the Article 15 found it to be legally sufficient. 
Shortly after the Article 15 was completed, the applicant’s 
commander initiated proceedings to vacate the suspended part of 
the applicant’s Article 15 punishment. The applicant was given 
the opportunity to consult counsel and provide a written response 
to the commander. On 31 January 2001, the commander vacated the 
suspension, resulting in the applicant’s reduction in grade from 
airman first class to airman. 

 

JAJM states the applicant alleges error in his Article 15 action 
in that he believes he had Sleep Apnea while he was in service 
and says this would explain the incident where he fell asleep on 
post. The fact he may have suffered from Sleep Apnea at the time 
of the Article 15 would not likely have affected the outcome of 
his Article 15. A diagnosis of Sleep Apnea might have been a 
mitigating factor for why the applicant fell asleep, but it does 
not change the fact he fell asleep while on post and would not 
necessarily have changed the commander’s mind about the proper 
course of action. 

 

JAJM indicates it is important to note the applicant has the 
burden of providing evidence to show the error or injustice that 
he is alleging with regard to his Article 15 action. He has 
stated that he has been diagnosed with Sleep Apnea, but has not 
provided any evidence of that diagnosis. Furthermore, he has 
provided nothing but his own speculation that he was suffering 
from Sleep Apnea at the time of the offenses upon which the 
Article 15 was based. 

 

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial with regard to upgrading the 
applicant’s RE code. DPSOA states the applicant was not serving 
a suspended Article 15 punishment at the time of his separation; 
therefore, the RE code of “4H” – “Serving suspended punishment 
pursuant to Article 15, UCMJ,” was erroneous. The correct RE 


code is “4E” – “Grade is airman first class or below and airman 
completed 31 or more months (55 months for 6-year enlistees), if 
a first-term airman; or, a grade is airman first class or below 
and the airman is a second-term or career airman.” AFPC/DPOSOY 
will publish and provide the applicant with a corrected copy of 
his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, to reflect an RE code of “4E,” unless otherwise directed by 
the Board. 

 

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 28 October 2011 for review and comment within 30 
days (Exhibit E). 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 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 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 that the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We 
note that AFPC/DPSOA has indicated the applicant’s RE code is 
incorrectly reflected as “4H” and will correct his record to 
reflect the correct code of “4E.” We concur with this 
correction. 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-2011-01181 in Executive Sessions on 8 December 2011 and 
5 January 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-01181: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 11 Mar 11. 

Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 6 Sep 11. 

Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 29 Sep 11. 

Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Oct 11. 

 

 

 

 

Chair