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. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was told that his Article 15 would not follow him or hurt his 
career. He recently lost his job because of a damaging 
background report indicating he committed fraud. To his 
knowledge, this information has never appeared in his background 
up to this point. He believes this information is unjust because 
he is still being punished 15 years after the event that led to 
this Article 15. 

 

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 on active duty from 5 October 1993 to 29 October 1996. He 
was trained and served as a Medical Assistant Apprentice and was 
progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3). 

 

On 27 February 1995, the applicant’s commander offered the 
applicant non-judicial punishment for wrongfully going from his 
place of duty in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ). After consulting with counsel, the 
applicant accepted the Article 15 and waived his right to demand 
a trial by court-martial. He presented written matters to and 
personally appeared before the commander, who, on 9 March 1995, 
decided the applicant committed the alleged offense. The 
resulting punishment consisted of a suspended reduction to the 
grade of airman (E-2) and forfeiture of $184 pay. The applicant 


did not appeal. A legal review of the Article 15 found the case 
legally sufficient. 

 

On 29 October 1996, the applicant was separated from the Air 
Force as an airman basic (E-1) with a general (under honorable 
conditions) characterization of service. He served 3 years and 
24 days on active duty. 

 

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s 
military service record, are contained in the evaluation by the 
Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C. 

 

On 19 April 2011, SAF/MRBR requested the applicant provide copies 
of his Article 15s as the microfiche copies in his record were 
unreadable. To this date, the applicant has not responded. 

 

On 22 August 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. JAJM states the reason for the 
applicant’s reduction in grade from airman first class to airman 
basic is not entirely clear from the applicant’s record of 
military justice actions. The Air Force Automated Military 
Justice Analysis and Management System (AMJAMS) does not show a 
vacation action relating to the suspended punishment the 
applicant received in the 9 March 1995 Article 15 action. 
However, it does show he was offered non-judicial punishment on 
4 April 1994 for failure to obey a lawful general order, in 
violation of Article 92, UCMJ, but that Article 15 action was 
dropped by the commander on 7 April 1994. It also shows the 
applicant was offered non-judicial punishment on 10 September 
1996 for forgery, in violation of Article 123a, UCMJ. That 
Article 15 action indicates the applicant accepted the Article 15 
on 25 September 1996, that he consulted a lawyer, and requested a 
personal hearing before the commander. The AMJAMS indicates that 
the punishment imposed was reduction from airman first class to 
airman basic. However, the AMJAMS entries on that Article 15 are 
incomplete and do not indicate whether the applicant had the 
opportunity to appeal the decision, nor is there any indication 
that the Article 15 action received legal review. 

 

JAJM states that in this case, the applicant’s issue appears to 
be with the fact that he may have an arrest on his record. It is 
possible his issue has arisen from how the Article 15 charge(s) 
were reported to the national criminal databases. With regard to 
the 9 March 1995 Article 15 action, the applicant has not raised 


any genuine doubt as to his guilt of the actual offense. 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. 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 in the Article 15 was appropriate to the 
offense and not unfairly harsh. 

 

JAJM indicates that it is unlikely that the 9 March 1995 Article 
15 action for wrongfully going from his place of duty would have 
resulted in a negative report to the national criminal databases. 
Since the applicant notes that his background check came back 
with a notation of “fraud,” it is likely the negative report in 
his background is tied to his 25 September 1996 Article 15 for 
forgery. While the AMJAMS record on this military justice action 
is incomplete, there is sufficient information in AMJAMS and the 
applicant’s military personnel record to assume the Article 15 
was completed and found to be legally sufficient. The 
coincidence of the timing of the Article 15 (September 1996) and 
the applicant’s administrative discharge (October 1996) suggest a 
tie between the two. An incomplete and legally sufficient 
Article 15 could not be used as the basis for an administrative 
discharge. In addition, the fact that the applicant was 
separated as an airman basic supports the fact that the 
25 September 1996 Article 15 was found to be legally sufficient. 
Finally, the applicant’s claim of “fraud” showing up in his 
background check is consistent with the offense charged on the 
25 September 1996 Article 15 – forgery. All of these factors and 
the presumption of regularity given to military justice actions 
such as this Article 15, weigh in favor of finding no error or 
injustice in the applicant’s 25 September 1996 Article 15. As 
such a set aside of the Article 15 is not in the best interest of 
the Air Force. 

 

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 26 August 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 their 
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 compelling 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-2011-01312 in Executive Session on 14 December 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-01312: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 8 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 8 Aug 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Aug 11. 

 

 

 

 

Panel Chair