RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01661 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. The reprimand he received from his general court-martial 
(GCM) sentence be removed from his records. 

 

2. The referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him 
with a close out date of 28 April 2007 be removed from his 
records. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His 3-month-old son was admitted to the hospital and later 
removed from his home after doctors discovered hairline 
fractures on his ribs. His son was later diagnosed with a rare 
bone connective tissue disease called Bruck’s Syndrome. Out of 
fear of their son being removed from their home by Child Welfare 
Services (CWS), he and his wife decided to separate. 

 

He and his wife requested the unit issue a no-contact order to 
convince CWS they had distanced themselves from each other. His 
wife also filed for legal separation. When he received the 
separation papers, he became concerned. The papers mistakenly 
noted that his wife intended to take her maiden name. After 
seeing this, he panicked and assumed something changed and that 
his wife intended to divorce him. He contacted her by telephone 
and text message to get reassurance from her that they would 
remain together. 

 

His wife notified his unit of the contact and he was placed into 
pre-trial confinement for 38 days. He was released from pre-
trial confinement upon the recommendation of the Article 32 
Investigation Officer. The Investigating Officer also 
recommended the charges be dismissed. 

 

An injustice has been committed against him. The prosecution 
violated the law and withheld critical evidence in order to 
secure a conviction. He has actively pursued restitution of 
these errors only to be ignored. He respectfully requests the 
Board conduct a full review of his case. 

 


In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a 19-page 
statement, a copy of the contested OPR, a copy of the court-
martial order and other supporting documentation. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently on active duty serving in the grade 
of captain (O-3). On 11 April 2007, pursuant to a general 
court-marital, he pled guilty to and was convicted of failing to 
obey a lawful order, in violation of Article 92, of the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He pled not guilty to and was 
found not guilty of unlawfully squeezing a child under the age 
of 16 with his hands, a violation of Article 128, UCMJ. He was 
sentenced to 30 days confinement and a reprimand. 

 

On 19 July 2007, the applicant was notified he would receive a 
referral OPR as a result of his court-martial conviction. The 
applicant submitted a statement on his behalf; which was 
considered by the additional rater. The referral OPR was filed 
in his master personnel record. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. Title 10 U.S.C 1552(f) limits the 
Boards ability to correct court-martial records. Specifically, 
it permits the correction of a record to reflect actions taken 
by a reviewing authority and the correction of records related 
to action on the sentence of courts-martial for the purpose of 
clemency. The Board is without authority to reverse, set aside, 
or otherwise expunge a court-martial conviction that occurred on 
or after 5 May 1950. 

 

The applicant was placed under investigation in March 2006 
because of medical and testimonial evidence that he may have 
assaulted his son. In April 2006, after admitting to a social 
worker that he squeezed, dropped, pinched and flicked his son, 
he was given an order by his commander not to have any contact 
with his children. Later, he was also given an order to have no 
contact with his wife. 

 

The applicant and his counsel had full opportunity to explore 
the issues raised both at trial and in clemency. While the 
applicant may consider the conviction de minimis, confinement 
for 30 days and a reprimand is well within the legal limits and 
appropriate for the offense committed. 

 


There being no evidence of clear error or injustice, the Board 
should deny the applicant’s request as it relates to his court-
martial sentence. 

 

The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. The applicant has not filed an 
appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB); 
however, the ERAB was not convinced the report was unjust or 
inaccurate and denied the applicant’s request. 

 

DPSID further states in accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and 
Enlisted Evaluation Reports, if a member is convicted by a 
court-martial, comment on that fact is mandatory in the next 
OPR, and the report becomes a referral. The court-martial 
conviction has not been dismissed; therefore, the mention of it 
in the applicant’s contested report is mandatory and 
appropriate. 

 

The complete DPSID 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 timely filed. 

 

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 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. 
Therefore, in the absence of 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 our 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 this application 
in Executive Session on 12 January 2012, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603: 

 

, Vice Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Feb 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 29 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 6 Oct 11. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 Vice Chair