RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01183
COUNSEL: NO
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The basis of the offense on his Article 15, disorderly
behavior, be made consistent on all of his records, and all
government agencys records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He has attempted to get employment with the airlines and they are
receiving information which is inconsistent with the Article 15
he received in April 2000.
The applicant does not provide any evidence in support of his
appeal.
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who
served from 2 June 1999 to 1 June 2005. He was trained and
served as an Aircraft Structural Maintenance Technician and was
progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4)
effective 21 January 2003.
On 19 April 2000, the applicant received non-judicial punishment
for being disorderly on or about 17 December 1999, by displaying
indecent materials to minors while on emergency leave. He
received punishment consisting of a reprimand and 30 days extra
duty.
The applicant was honorably discharged effective 1 June 2005 for
completion of required active service. He served six years on
active duty.
On 21 October 2011, SAF/MRBR, notified the applicant that he
could submit a request to the Air Force Office of Special
Investigations (AFOSI) to expunge or correct information
concerning his Air Force service as reflected in the National
Crime Information Center (NCIC).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial with regard to the applicants
Article 15. JAJM states the applicant has not shown a clear
error or injustice. JAJM indicates that the applicants issue
appears not to be with the Article 15 itself, but rather how the
events underlying the Article 15 have been reported elsewhere.
The text of the commanders reprimand gives a clue as to how the
events that underpin the Article 15 may have been originally
reported in law enforcement channels By displaying indecent
materials to minors while you were on emergency leave, you have
failed to meet the high standards of integrity required of airmen
in todays Air Force. JAJM notes it is possible the applicants
issue in this case has arisen from how the charges were initially
reported to national criminal databases. This reporting is done
contemporaneously with the criminal investigation and military
justice action by Air Force law enforcement authorities - AFOSI
and Security Forces. If any action by the Board is necessary, it
should be directed to these Air Force entities to have them
submit any necessary corrections to the national criminal
databases. However, JAJM indicates there is no error in the fact
that the commander commented in his reprimand on the facts
underlying the charge against the applicant. Furthermore, a
review of the non-judicial punishment action shows no error in
the processing of the action. The applicant was given all of his
rights throughout the process. He was able to present matters
(with the assistance of legal counsel) to the commander for
consideration before imposition of punishment. In addition, he
was able to appeal the decision of his commander.
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. The punishment imposed by Article 15 was
appropriate to the offense and not unfairly harsh.
The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 28 October 2011 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit
D). 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 opinion and recommendation
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has
not been the victim of an error or injustice. 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-2011-01183 in Executive Session on 8 December 2011,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-01183:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Mar 11.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 27 Apr 11.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Oct 11.
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04697
For this misconduct the applicant received an Article 15. d. On or about 17 October 2002, the applicant failed to report on time to his assigned duty location. On 6 October 2005, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and approved the applicants request that his general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable, to change his narrative reason for separation from drug abuse to misconduct and his reentry code changed to 3K (Exhibit B). The applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00319
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00319 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His military records and civilian criminal records be corrected to reflect he received a bad conduct discharge (BCD) for indecent acts and sodomy instead of a dishonorable discharge (DD) for strong arme [sic]...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01312
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01312 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Article 15 be expunged from his record and the resulting negative information be expunged from his security background. The Air Force Automated Military Justice Analysis and Management System (AMJAMS) does not show a vacation action relating to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2011-05095
The commanders at the time of these nonjudicial punishment actions had the best opportunity to evaluate the evidence in these cases. The legal review processes showed that the commanders did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in making these decisions. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00657
In the requested waiver the applicant 2 acknowledged his rights to present his case before an administrative discharge board, be represented by military counsel, and submit statements in his own behalf to be considered by the administrative discharge board and the separation authority. The applicant submitted an appeal for upgrade of his discharge and change of the narrative reason for discharge to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB). While the applicant alleges the confession was...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01429
On 26 Sep 11, the appeal was denied by his commander, and on 29 Sep 11 by the appellate authority. The SFMIS database reflects that the applicant was charged with rape using force, adultery, and communicating a threat in 2011. Though never prosecuted before a court-martial for these offenses, the applicant was offered the opportunity to go to a court-martial; however, he elected to take the NJP instead and was found guilty of these offenses.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02277
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02277 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to Honorable. On 19 Oct 12, he received a letter from Headquarters Air Force Office of Special Investigations (HQ AFOSI) indicating they expunged the Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment, court sentence charge indexed in the National Crime Information...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04036
On 12 Jul 11, while again a technical sergeant, the applicants commander offered him NJP under Article 15 of the UCMJ for willfully failing to properly handle classified information by storing a classified briefing marked NATO SECRET REL ISAF on his personal computer. We note that the commander exercised the discretion that the applicant granted him when he accepted the Article 15 and found nonjudicial punishment appropriate in his case, the punishment decision was well within the limits...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02655
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02655 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. JAJM indicates that under Title 10, United States Code (USC), Section 1552(f), which amended the basic corrections board legislation, the Air Force Board for...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02255
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The wrong date appears on the second page of his Air Force Form 1168, Statement of Suspect/Witness/Complainant. In addition, he was not adequately advised by his defense counsel with respect to his right under the UCMJ, nor was his defense counsel present when he signed the Air Force (AF) Form 3070C, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings, indicating his election not to appeal. ...