AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2011-04636 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF:   
 
 
  
 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His Article 15 received on 4 February 2011, be set aside and his 
rank to staff sergeant (E-5) be restored.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
The punishment of reduction in rank was too severe since he had 
no previous infractions.  He does not make any excuses for his 
actions that led to his receipt of an Article 15, but will use it 
as a learning experience for himself and future airmen.   
 
In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal 
statement,  several  character  references,  and  a  copy  of  his 
Article 15.   
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the Regular 
Air Force in the grade of senior airman (E-4).  In January 2011, 
the applicant stated to his supervisor that the Child Development 
Center had called him and told him that his daughter was sick and 
had to be taken home.  However, this statement was false, and in 
fact, the applicant left his place of duty to go to the Enlisted 
Club to gamble.  As a result, on 31 January 2011, the applicant’s 
commander  offered  the  applicant,  then  a  staff  sergeant,  an 
Article  15.    He  was  charged  with  making  a  false  official 
statement to his supervisor, in violation of Article 107, Uniform 
Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ).    After  consulting  with  his 
assigned  military  defense  counsel,  the  applicant  accepted 
nonjudicial punishment proceedings and waived his right to demand 
a  trial  by  court-martial.    He  presented  written  matters  to  and 
made a personal appearance before the commander.  On 4 February 
2011, the commander decided the applicant committed the alleged 
offense  and  impose  punishment  consisting  of  reduction  to  the 
grade of senior airman and a reprimand.  The applicant declined 

to appeal the Article 15 or the punishment.  A legal review of 
the  Article  15  determined  it  was  legally  sufficient.    The 
applicant  also  received  a  referral  Enlisted  Performance  Report 
(EPR) for the period 21 August 2010 – 11 February 2011.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial.  JAJM states the applicant has not 
provided sufficient basis to warrant a set aside of his Article 
15.  He 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 the Article 15 action such that a set aside would be 
in  the  best  interests  of  the  Air  Force.    It  is  JAJM’s  opinion 
that the Board should also not grant the applicant’s request to 
be  restored  to  the  rank  of  staff  sergeant.    The  crux  of  the 
applicant’s argument is that he admits he committed the offense, 
but that reduction in rank was too severe as punishment for the 
offense.    In  support  of  this  contention,  he  provides  several 
character references and a personal statement in which he takes 
full responsibility for the actions and states he has learned an 
important lesson.  At the time the Article 15 was offered, the 
applicant had an opportunity to address his commander and present 
similar  reference  letters.    The  commander  was  in  the  best 
position to evaluate the offense, the applicant’s responses, and 
the  effect  that  the  offense  would  have  on  good  order  and 
discipline  in  the  unit.    The  applicant’s  case  is  not  strong 
enough  to  outweigh  the  deference  that  should  be  given  to  the 
commander who was there at the time of the offense.   
 
The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.   
 
AFPC/DPSOE  states  that  JAJM  found  no  error  or  injustice; 
therefore, they defer to their recommendation.  DPSOE indicates 
that based on the applicant’s date of rank (DOR) to senior airman 
of  4 February  2011,  he  will  be  eligible  for  promotion 
consideration  to  staff  sergeant  during  cycle  12E5,  provided  he 
has  a  non-referral  EPR  with  a  close-out  date  on  or  before 
31 March 2012.  Should the Board decide to remove the Article 15 
and  restore  the  applicant’s  rank  to  staff  sergeant  with  his 
original  DOR  of  1 December  2008,  he  will  not  be  eligible  for 
promotion  consideration  to  technical  sergeant  (E-6)  until  cycle 
13E6 due to the referral EPR.   
 
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

2

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
Copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the 
applicant on 6 March 2012, 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 an error or an injustice.  We took 
notice  of  the  applicant's  complete  submission  in  judging  the 
merits  of  the  case;  however,  we  agree  with  the  opinions  and 
recommendations  of  the  Air  Force  offices  of  primary 
responsibility  and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our 
conclusion 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  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2011-04636 in Executive Session on 17 July 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 

 
 
 

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

 

 

3

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-04636: 
 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Nov 11, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 12 Jan 12. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 30 Jan 12. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Mar 12. 

 
 
 
 

  
Panel Chair 

 

4