RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02000 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), dated 26 April 2011, be 
removed. 

 

2. He be reinstated to the grade of Staff Sergeant (E-5) rather 
than Senior Airman (E-4) and receive all back pay and allowances 
associated with that grade. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The Article 15 punishment is unjust because he did not receive a 
“no contact” order according to paragraph 4 of Air Force 
Instruction (AFI) 36-2909, Professional and Unprofessional 
Relationships. There was also a lack of evidence and 
investigation. He would have submitted his report but he was 
never interviewed. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of AF Form 1168s with witness statements and 
copies of his AF Form 3070A, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment 
Proceedings (AB thru TSgt). 

 

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

 

His Records of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings are at 
Exhibit B. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the Regular 
Air Force in the grade of Senior Airman. 

 

Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these 
facts in this Record of Proceedings. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states the applicant was 
charged with one specification of dereliction of duty, in 
violation of Article 92, UCMJ. The specification stated that 
the applicant was derelict in the performance of his duties in 
that he negligently failed to refrain from engaging in an 
unprofessional relationship with a junior enlisted member, in 
violation of AFI 36-2909, paragraphs 2.2, 3.1, and 3.4. The 
applicant accepted the Article 15 and waived his right to demand 
trial by court-martial after consulting with counsel. He did 
not submit written matters to the commander but requested a 
personal appearance before the commander. On 26 April 2011, the 
commander decided the applicant had committed the charged 
offense and imposed punishment consisting of a reduction to the 
grade of Senior Airman (E-4) and a reprimand. The applicant 
appealed the commander’s decision and submitted matters in 
writing, but the commander and the appellate authority denied 
the appeal. The Article 15 action was reviewed and determined 
to be legally sufficient. 

 

The applicant highlighted the fact that there was no official 
investigation conducted into his offense. Such an investigation 
is not required as a prerequisite to military justice action. 
The applicant also argued that the charge against him does not 
state an offense. The applicant misinterpreted the language in 
AFI 36-2909, paragraph 4. The only language in the paragraph 
which applies to the applicant’s case is the first line of the 
introductory paragraph which says “The policy set out in this 
instruction applies to all active duty members….” A violation of 
Article 92, UCMJ, can be charged as failure to obey a lawful 
general order or regulation; failure to obey a lawful order; or 
dereliction in the performance of duties. The applicant was 
charged with negligent dereliction of duty. 

 

There was no error or injustice in the course of the processing 
of the Article 15 action. The applicant made these same 
arguments to the commander before his decision and also to the 
commander and the appellate authority on appeal. The 
applicant’s rights were observed throughout the process. He 
accepted the forum of the Article 15 and made a personal 
appearance before the commander. He gave a written presentation 
on appeal. The article 15 was reviewed at two levels for legal 
sufficiency. 

 

The applicant has not raised any genuine doubt as to his guilt 
of the offense for which he was punished or established any 
error or injustice in his Article 15 action such that a removal 
of the Article 15 would be in the best interests of the Air 
Force. The punishment imposed in the Article 15 was appropriate 
and not unfairly harsh. The commander was in the best position 
to carefully weigh all the evidence and make an informed 
decision. 

 


The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE defers to the JAJM recommendation. DPSOE states that 
AFLOA/JAJM has reviewed this case, found no error or injustice, 
and recommends denial. 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 5 October 2011 for review and comment within 30 
days. 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 Military Justice Division 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 this application 
BC-2011-02000 in Executive Session on 2 February 2012, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 May 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 6 September 2011. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 13 September 2011. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 September 2011. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair