ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02116
COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: YES
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His non-judicial punishment (Article 15) be declared void and be removed from his record.
2. His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 5 Apr 10 through 4 Apr 11, be declared void and removed from his record.
3. His discharge from the Air Force be rescinded.
4. In the alternative, his Narrative Reason for Separation as reflected on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to Secretarial Authority, the characterization of his discharge be upgraded to Honorable, and his Reentry (RE) code be change to one that would allow him to reenlist.
________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 7 Mar 13, the Board considered and denied the applicants original request to correct his records. In the original case, the applicant contended he is innocent of the charges preferred against him and the evidence was not sufficient to support non-judicial punishment (NJP). Specifically, the two witnesses who testified against him were unreliable. One witness was a self-identified long-term drug user, and the other was a confidential informant for the Office of Special Investigation (OSI) who later recanted his statement that the applicant used Spice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicants complete submission, the Board determined the evidence provided by the applicant was insufficient to demonstrate the NJP had an insufficient basis or constituted an abuse of the commanders discretionary authority. The Board concluded that the applicant was provided all of the rights to which he was entitled, including the right to refuse the Article 15 and demand trial by court-martial, which would have required a higher standard of evidence for determining whether or not he committed the alleged offenses. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicants original request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit I.
On 15 Jun 13, through legal counsel, the applicant submitted a statement requesting reconsideration of his case due to having submitted new evidence. The new evidence consists of a personal signed letter, dated 29 May 13, from the applicants accuser (not the OSI informant), who is no longer an Air Force member, stating she only accused the applicant of using Spice to get back at her ex-boyfriend (the OSI informant) because she was mad at him and the applicant was his friend. She states I know that my statement has caused (the applicant) to be thrown out of the Air Force, but he should not have been. In addition, she states that during her court-martial it was disclosed that her ex-boyfriend (the OSI informant) was the only OSI informant in the case, and she is aware he too signed a statement admitting the applicant did not use Spice. The applicant further contends that if the commander at the time had known his accuser only accused him because she was angry with her ex-boyfriend and she recanted her statement, he would not have upheld the Article 15.
The applicants complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit J.
________________________________________________________________
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 concerning the applicants receipt of non-judicial punishment, the referral EPR, or his involuntary discharge. We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, the Board believes the commander at the time properly exercised the discretion the applicant granted him when he accepted NJP proceeding in lieu of his right to be tried by a court-martial. The legal review process showed the commander did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in making his decision. Given the clear lack of credibility of the two most significant witnesses, having provided evidence first against and then later on behalf of the applicant, the newly submitted information does not constitute a compelling argument that the Board should overturn the NJP action which formed the legitimate basis for the applicants discharge. However, while we are reluctant to substitute our judgment for that of the commander in the NJP process as we are not privy to the totality of the evidence he considered, we believe that it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicants record to reflect he was honorably discharged. In this respect we note that while the evidence presented by the applicant is not sufficient for us to conclude the NJP, subsequent referral enlisted performance report (EPR), and resultant discharge were not proper, we believe that some measure of relief is warranted. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we recommend the applicants record be corrected as indicated below.
4. The applicants 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 RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 3 August 2011, he was honorably discharged with a narrative reason for separation of Secretarial Authority, rather than MisconductDrug Abuse, a separation program designator (SPD) code of KFF rather than JKK, and a reentry (RE) code of 3K rather than 2B.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered the applicants request for reconsideration of AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-02116 in Executive Session on 12 Nov 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit I. Record of Proceedings, dated 7 Mar 13.
Exhibit J. Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Mar 13, w/atchs.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02116
The applicant contends he is innocent of the charges preferred and asserts that, by deductive reasoning, he has identified who the confidential informant must have been, and that individual now recants any statement he may have made to the Air Force Office of Special Investigation regarding whether the applicant every smoked Spice in his presence. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request to have his referral EPR...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04076
In this case, the commander concluded that the applicant had assaulted his wife. Finally, although the actions taken against the applicant may have been instigated by his ex-wife’s allegations against him, the commander only took action after an investigation by the OSI substantiated misconduct on the applicant’s part. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02536
We believe the commander was in the best position to weigh the evidence in the case and judge the applicant’s credibility, as well as that of the statements made in this case, prior to recommending the discharge action. The applicant has not provided any evidence that the commanders abused their authority when they recommended and subsequently approved the applicant’s discharge. The new statement has been reviewed, however, as noted by the Staff Judge Advocate, this individual repeats the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04160
His official records be corrected to show he was not convicted by court-martial, but that he was punished through non-judicial punishment. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility which are included at Exhibits C, D, E, and F. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01468
His medals were denied due to the rating on the contested report. The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. After the investigation, the commander issued the applicant an LOR for his actions taken against his spouse.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC 2011 04923 2
As for the comments related to her fitness assessment in the contested referral EPR, the objectionable comments indicated the applicant received a does not meet standards rating on her fitness assessment (FA) because she failed to receive a passing score; however, said comments relate to a FA the applicant participated in after the close-out of the contested referral EPR. After a thorough review of the applicants complete submission, the evidence of record and the rebuttal, we find the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01169
On 18 Mar 04, his commander, after considering the evidence and applicant’s response to the Article 15 determined he had committed the offenses alleged. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPF concurs with AFLSA/JAJM’s determination regarding the applicant’s request to remove the LOR issued to him. The applicant notes that the statements have nothing to do with the relief he is requesting from the Board.
AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0168
(EF-V2) CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE | ¢p9902-0168 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. Member had a previous Letter of Reprimand for an unprofessional relationship with a dependent female under the age of 18, and an Article 15 for failing to refrain from having unescorted female minors in his dormitory room. The Board found no wrongful action by the Air Force, and finds the discharge proper and without basis for upgrade.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03886
At the time of the incident which resulted in his NJP, he was serving in the grade of TSgt with the 78th Security Forces Squadron, Robins AFB, GA. On 12 May 2005, the applicant’s commander offered him NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, for disorderly conduct and assault. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation applicant submitted in support of his appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00684
The AF Form 1168 did not list all the charges preferred against her and her Article 31 rights were violated which is reason to question the entire investigation. The form on which the applicant acknowledged and waived her Article 31 rights only indicates she was suspected of a false official statement; however, TSgt P. provided a memorandum for record stating she did orally tell the applicant of each allegation and there is additional evidence supporting the applicants guilt besides her...