RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02015 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His records be corrected as follows: 

 

 1. The Article 15 dated 14 Jul 09 be rescinded 

 

 2. His Letter of Admonishment (LOA) dated 25 May 09, be 
reinstated. 

 

 3. He be restored to the grade of master sergeant with a 
date of rank and effective date of 1 Jun 09. 

 

 4. All references to the Article 15 stated in his referral 
AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the 
period of 2 Jun 08 thru 29 Dec 09, be removed and an overall 
rating of “5” be applied or the EPR be removed from his record. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

 1. His AF IMT 1168, Statement – Suspect/Witness/Complainant, 
dated 16 May 09, was used against him in conjunction with the 
Article 15 action. He was accused of submitting false 
information on his statement. 

 

 2. On 25 May 09, he received a LOA for failure in leadership 
and exercising poor judgment; specifically, ignoring a violation 
of General Order #1 (alcohol use). On 9 Jul 09, the LOA was 
rescinded; however, he feels it should not have been. One 
individual received a LOA and one was not punished. 

 

 3. Between 9 and 14 Jul 09, he was unjustly served with an 
Article 15 for two specifications: 1) wrongfully consuming 
alcohol and 2) falsifying an official statement. He was issued a 
LOA for wrongfully consuming alcohol. The alcohol violation was 
included in his 16 May 09 statement; however, it was not acted 
upon and he did not tell the complete truth. However, his 22 Jun 
09 statement was the absolute and complete truth. 

 

 4. His punishment was read as a reduction to the grade of 
technical sergeant with a new date of rank of 14 Jul 07 and 
reprimand. He would not have accepted the punishment if he knew 


his date of rank (DOR) would be changed to 14 Jul 09. The error 
substantially changed his punishment and he was not given an 
opportunity to decline the new date. With the earlier date, he 
could test in the next cycle and retain two years time in grade; 
however, he will not test for master sergeant until 2012. 

 

 5) He was issued the Article 15 as a Senior Noncommissioned 
Officer (SNCO), but at the time of the incident, he was not a 
SNCO. He would like the punishment set aside. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of an 
incident/punishment timeline, General Order Number 1B, NJPs, 
suspect/witness/complainant statements, character statements, 
award recommendations and Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs). 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in 
the grade of technical sergeant. 

 

On 15 May 09, the applicant attended a bonfire with other airmen 
deployed to a forward operating base in Afghanistan where he and 
other individuals consumed alcohol, in violation of General Order 
1B, paragraph 2C. 

 

On 25 May 09, he was issued a Letter of Admonishment (LOA). He 
acknowledged receipt of the LOA and requested to submit a 
statement on his behalf. His commander considered the statement; 
however, the LOA was not rescinded. 

 

During promotion cycle 08E7, he was promoted to the grade of 
master sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a 
date of rank of 1 Jun 09. 

 

On 22 Jun 09, he was given rights advisement based on the alleged 
offense of violating a lawful general order. 

 

On 9 Jul 09, his commander imposed Article 15 nonjudicial 
punishment (NJP). He was charged with violating a lawful general 
regulation for wrongfully consuming alcohol and making a false 
official statement. He consulted counsel, accepted the Article 
15 and waived his right to demand trial by court-martial. He 
submitted a statement on his own behalf but declined to make a 
personal appearance. On 14 Jul 09, his commander imposed 


punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of technical 
sergeant with a new date of rank of 14 Jul 09 and reprimand. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove 
the Article 15 action from his records. 

 

 1. The applicant’s rights were observed throughout the 
process. At the time the applicant gave his statement, he was 
not suspected of having committed an offense under the UCMJ; 
therefore, no rights advisement was required prior to his being 
asked to give a statement. His signature on the AF IMT 1168, 
indicates he read the statement, initialed all pages and/or 
corrections and that the statement was true and correct to the 
best of his knowledge. JAJM states the applicant’s statement as 
a witness rather than pursuant to a rights advisement has no 
bearing on the matter as he is not entitled to submit a false 
official statement. 

 

 2. JAJM notes the commander’s decision to rescind the LOA 
and issue NJP is not arbitrary or capricious and he followed the 
proper and necessary processes for imposing the actions. 

 

 3. JAJM opines the Article 15 punishment is fully supported 
by the evidence. His commander was in a unique position to 
evaluate his case; particularly in light of the issues of good 
order and discipline in a deployed environment. The applicant’s 
allegation of lesser punishment of others is unfounded as each 
case is evaluated on its own merits. JAJM states the errors in 
the Article 15 are harmless in its processing and do not warrant 
action by the Board. JAJM notes all elements of the offense were 
included in the specification; however, the date of the 
applicant’s false statement was mixed up. JAJM opines it is 
disingenuous for the applicant to claim he was not reasonably 
informed of the offense in question considering he made two sworn 
statements in conjunction with the events. JAJM notes the 
applicant did not raise this issue with his commander or appeal 
the issue to the next higher commander. 

 

 4. JAJM notes the applicant received punishment on 14 Jul 
09; however, he did not appeal the commander’s decision on that 
date. His appeal was submitted and denied in Oct 09. The 
applicant initialed the change to the Article 15 between 11 Aug 
09 and 8 Sep 09. The fact that the applicant’s initials were 
added to the Article 15 after Capt M affirmed the legal 
sufficiency of the Article 15 is error. JAJM notes the error 
should be considered harmless for two reasons: 1) AFI 36-2404, Service Dates and Dates of Rank, paragraph 12.2 states the DOR in 
the grade to which an airman is reduced under Article 15, UCMJ, 


is the date of the endorsement (or letter) directing the 
reduction. The endorsement date of the applicant’s punishment 
was 14 Jul 09. JAJM states the DOR 14 Jul 07 is clearly a 
typographical error which was properly corrected once it was 
discovered; 2) as stated by the applicant, in Oct 09 he was able 
to prepare an appeal of his Article 15 to the commander of higher 
rank than the one that provided punishment. JAJM opines his 
appeal was based on the fact he still wanted to take 
responsibility for his actions; however, he felt the punishment 
was too severe. 

 

 5) JAJM notes the applicant did not appeal the commander’s 
decision or submit a statement on his behalf regarding the Senior 
Noncommissioned Officer Selection Record (SNOOSR). His commander 
elected not to file the action in his SNCOSR. JAJM notes setting 
aside the Article 15 would restore the applicant to the position 
held before imposition of the punishment as if the action has 
never been initiated. JAJM states set aside is to be used 
strictly in the rare and unusual case where a genuine question 
about the service member’s guilt arises or where the best 
interests of the Air Force would be served. JAJM notes the 
applicant made a false official statement and wrongfully drank 
alcohol in a deployed environment. 

 

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request for 
restoration of his rank to master sergeant and defers to the 
recommendations submitted by JAJM and DPSID. 

 

DPSOE notes the referral EPR would not have affected the 
applicant’s promotion to master sergeant for cycle 08E7. DPSOE 
states supplemental consideration would not be required, if the 
report is removed. 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant reiterates many of his earlier contentions. He did 
not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board 
(ERAB). He accepted the Article 15 with the DOR of 14 Jul 07 in 
“good faith” believing he was being given a break and would be 
able to immediately test for master sergeant. One "error" that 
was never addressed in the advisory opinion was the fact that he 
was reprimanded as a senior noncommissioned officer when he was 
not one at the time of the incident. He firmly believes that if 
the correct dates, times, places of the official statement had 
been correct, he would have been reprimanded as a noncommissioned 


officer and not held to a higher standard than he should have 
been. He believes a better approach would have been to redline 
his promotion at the start of the investigation and not punish 
him later. He was let down by the Air Force legal system. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
remove all references to the Article 15 from the referral EPR 
rendered for the period of 2 Jun 08 through 29 Dec 09 and his 
overall rating of “4” be changed to read “5.” DPSID states the 
applicant has provided no evidence of inappropriate handling or 
decision-making on the part of his leadership in pursuing the 
Article 15 action. 

 

DPSID notes the applicant has not provided a substitute report or 
memorandums of support from his original rating chain to justify 
a change in the overall rating from “4” to “5.” DPSID states the 
report was accurately written and should not be changed. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit F. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant states he is requesting the EPR rating be changed 
only if the Article 15 is expunged. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit H. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an error or injustice to warrant 
rescinding the applicant’s Article 15 and reinstating the LOA he 
previously received. His contentions are duly noted; however, we 
agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force 
offices of primary responsibilities and adopt their rationale as 


the basis for our conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain 
his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an injustice. 
While we note there were errors in the processing of his Article 
15, as pointed out by JAJM, the errors are harmless and we agree 
they do not warrant action by this Board. The applicant also 
asserts he was held to a higher standard and punished as a senior 
NCO when in fact he was a NCO at the time of the incident. 
However, no evidence has been presented which would lead us to 
believe that the nonjudicial punishment, initiated on 9 Jul 
09 was improper. In cases of this nature, we are inclined not to 
disturb the judgments of commanding officers absent a strong 
showing of abuse of discretionary authority. We have no such 
showing here. The evidence indicates that, during the processing 
of this Article 15 action, the applicant was offered every right 
to which he was entitled. He consulted with defense counsel, 
waived his right to demand trial by court-martial, and submitted 
written matters for review by the imposing commander. After 
considering the matters raised by the applicant, the commander 
determined the applicant had committed the alleged offenses and 
imposed punishment on the applicant. The applicant has not 
provided any evidence showing the imposing commander authority 
abused his discretionary authority, that his substantial rights 
were violated during the processing of the Article 15 punishment, 
or that the punishment exceeded the maximum authorized by the 
UCMJ. Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we 
find no basis upon which to favorably consider 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 in 
Executive Session on 8 Mar 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 

 


The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2011-02015: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 May 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 18 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOE, dated 13 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Oct 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSID, dated 2 Nov 11. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Nov 11. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Nov 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair