RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02497 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His Article 15 imposed on 13 September 2010 be set aside and 
all rights and privileges be restored. 

 

2. His grade of master sergeant (E-7) be restored with an 
effective date of 1 June 2004. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Despite his outstanding record, his commander abused his 
discretion by reducing him in rank four months before his 
retirement for a single occurrence of being late for work due to 
oversleeping. His commander’s actions were harsh and unjust. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement and copies of an information letter; Inspector General 
(IG) Complaints; appeal of Article 15; response to Article 15; 
Article 15 action; witness statements; electronic communications; 
IG response; Complaint of Wrongs under Article 138, Uniform Code 
of Military Justice (UCMJ); Request for Redress; selection for 
deployment notification, a No-Show for Promotion Testing, Leave 
and Earnings Statement; retirement calculator documents; award 
documents; performance reports; and congressional inquiry 
documentation. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
served from 5 June 1987 to 31 May 2011. He served as a Material 
Management Craftsman and was progressively promoted to the grade 
of master sergeant (E-7) effective 1 June 2004. 

 

The applicant received non-judicial punishment on 13 September 
2010 for two incidents of failure to go at the time prescribed to 
his appointed place of duty in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. He 


received punishment consisting of reduction in grade to technical 
sergeant (E-6) with a new date of rank of 13 September 2010; 
forfeiture of $1,742 pay per month for two months, suspended 
through 12 March 2011; and 14 days extra duty. 

 

The applicant was released from active duty on 31 May 2011 and 
retired effective 1 June 2011 in the grade of technical sergeant. 
He served 23 years, 11 months, and 26 days o active duty. 

 

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s 
service records, are contained in the advisory opinions prepared 
by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility at Exhibits C 
and D. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states the applicant’s 
commander offered the applicant non-judicial punishment on 
31 August 2101 for two instances of failing to go to his 
appointed place of duty, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. The 
applicant consulted with defense counsel and accepted the Article 
15, waiving his right to demand trial by court-martial. He 
presented written matters to the commander, but did not make a 
personal appearance. On 13 September 2010, the commander decided 
the applicant had committed the alleged offenses and imposed 
punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of technical 
sergeant, suspended forfeiture of $1,742 pay per month for two 
months, and 14 days extra duty. The applicant appealed the 
commander’s decision and provided matters in writing; however, 
both his commander and the appellate authority denied the appeal. 
The Article 15 action was reviewed and found to be legally 
sufficient. 

 

JAJM indicates that an examination of the applicant’s Article 15 
shows no error or injustice. There appear to be no deficiencies 
in the exercise of any of the applicant’s rights to due process 
or assistance of counsel. His claim of injustice is not well-
founded. First, the Article 15 was for two separate instances of 
the applicant failing to go to his appointed place of duty, not 
“for a single occurrence of being late for work due to 
oversleeping,” as contended by the applicant. Second, the 
evidence of the applicant’s failure to go fully supports the 
commander’s decisions. In fact, the statements from the people 
involved in the applicant’s two instances of failure to go which 
are included in the application, are sufficient evidence for the 
commander to determine that non-judicial punishment was 
warranted. The applicant’s commander was in the best position to 
evaluate the evidence available and to consider the applicant’s 
submission of additional matters. 

 


It is JAJM opinion that based on the evidence presented and 
considering the other factors mentioned by the applicant, the 
commander was clearly not acting in an arbitrary or capricious 
manner when he found non-judicial punishment appropriate in this 
case. Furthermore, the punishment imposed was appropriate to the 
offense and not unfairly harsh. 

 

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 AFPC/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 16 September 2011, for review and comment within 30 days. As of 
this date, this office has received no response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES 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. 

 

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 Docket Number BC-
2011-02497 in Executive Session on 2 February 2012, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

  Panel Chair 

  Member 

  Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-02497: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 1 Aug 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 30 Aug 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Sep 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair