AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 

 

 
 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2011-05095 
COUNSEL: NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

 
IN THE MATTER OF:   
      
 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:  
 
His Article 15 be expunged from his record along with the charges 
that  have  been  reported  to  the  National  Crime  Intelligence 
Service (NCIS) Database.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He  was  steered  by  his  government  appointed  defense  counsel  to 
accept  Article  15  punishment  as  opposed  to  electing  a  trial  by 
court-martial.  He was told that if he accepted the Article 15, 
these charges would not appear on his civilian record.  However, 
these charges do appear on his record when he applies for jobs, 
making him unable to find a job in this tough economy.   
 
In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  copies  of  two 
interview  statements  made  through  his  Area  Defense  Counsel’s 
office.   
 
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 was 
released from active duty on 8 July 2010, with a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge.  During his time on active duty 
status,  the  applicant  received  three  nonjudicial  punishment 
actions.  
 
First,  the  applicant  was  offered  nonjudicial  punishment  under 
Article  15,  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ)  for  one 
specification  of  false  official  statement,  in  violation  of 
Article 107, UCMJ; one specification of fleeing apprehension, in 
violation of Article 95, UCMJ; one specification of controlling a 
vehicle while intoxicated, in violation of Article 111, UCMJ; and 
one specification of being drunk and disorderly, in violation of 
Article 134, UCMJ.  The applicant was afforded the opportunity to 

consult with defense counsel, accepted the Article 15, and waived 
his  right  to  demand  trial  by  court-martial.    He  elected  to 
present written matters and make a personal appearance before the 
commander.    On  11  February  2009,  the  commander  decided  the 
applicant  had  committed  the  charged  offenses  and  imposed 
punishment consisting of reduction to the rank of senior airman 
(E-4),  a  suspended  forfeiture  of  $200  pay  per  month  for  two 
months, and a reprimand.  The applicant appealed the commander’s 
decision.  On 13 February 2009, the appellate authority granted 
the  applicant’s  appeal  in  part  and  remitted  the  suspended 
forfeiture of pay.  The Article 15 action was reviewed and found 
to be legally sufficient.   
 
Second,  in  December  2009,  the  applicant,  who  had  regained  the 
rank of staff sergeant, used the radiology on-call cellular phone 
for personal use.  Due to this misconduct, he was again offered 
nonjudicial  punishment  under  Article  15,  UCMJ.    He  was  charged 
with  one  specification  of  dereliction  of  duty,  in  violation  of 
Article  92,  UCMJ.    Again,  the  applicant  was  afforded  the 
opportunity to consult with defense counsel, accepted the Article 
15, and waived his right to demand trial by court-martial.  He 
elected to present written matters and make a personal appearance 
before  his  commander.    On  27  April  2010,  the  commander  decided 
that  the  applicant  committed  the  charged  offense  and  imposed 
punishment consisting of reduction to the rank of senior airman, 
forfeiture  of  $1,146,  and  a  reprimand.    The  applicant  appealed 
the punishment, which was denied by the appellate authority.  The 
Article  15  action  was  reviewed  and  determined  to  be  legally 
sufficient.   
 
Third, in June 2010, the applicant, who was then a senior airman, 
engaged in a late night verbal altercation with his wife.  As the 
verbal  altercation  accelerated,  the  applicant  pinned  his  wife 
down on the floor, causing his wife to struggle to escape.  When 
the  applicant’s  wife  escaped,  she  ran  to  a  neighbor’s  home  and 
called police.  The applicant was then observed driving away from 
the house before the police arrived.  Once the applicant returned 
home, the police searched his vehicle and found an unregistered 
firearm  in  his  vehicle.    Based  on  this  incident,  the  applicant 
was  offered  nonjudicial  punishment  under  Article  15,  UCMJ,  for 
the  third  time.    He  was  charged  with  one  specification  of 
dereliction  of  duty  for  possessing  an  unregistered  firearm  and 
one specification of disobeying a lawful order for violating his 
commander’s order not to have any contact with his wife, both in 
violation  of  Article  92,  UCMJ  and,  one  specification  of  being 
disorderly, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.  The applicant was 
afforded  the  opportunity  to  consult  with  defense  counsel, 
accepted the Article 15, and waived his right to demand trial by 
court-martial.  He declined to present written matters or make a 
personal appearance before his commander.  On 24 June 2010, the 
commander  determined  the  applicant  had  committed  the  charged 
offenses  and  imposed  punishment  consisting  of  reduction  to  the 

 2

rank  of  airman  basic  (E-1),  and  a  reprimand.    The  applicant 
declined  to  appeal  the  commander’s  decision.    Subsequently  a 
legal review of the Article 15 determined the action was legally 
sufficient.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFLOA/JAJM  recommends  denial.    JAJM  states  that  although  the 
applicant does not distinguish which Article 15 he is referring 
to,  each  nonjudicial  punishment  was  reviewed  and  found  to  be 
legally sufficient.  Furthermore, the applicant does not allege 
error  in  how  the  Article  15s  were  processed.    A  review  of  the 
available  documentation  for  each  Article  15  indicates  that  the 
applicant’s  rights  were  observed  through  the  process  of  each 
Article 15.  He made personal appearances before his commander on 
three separate occasions and appealed three of the actions.  One 
of the appeals, relief was granted.  The commanders at the time 
of these nonjudicial punishment actions had the best opportunity 
to evaluate the evidence in these cases.  With that perspective, 
the  commanders  exercised  the  discretion  that  the  applicant 
granted  them  when  he  accepted  the  Article  15s  and  found  the 
nonjudicial  punishments  appropriate  in  these  cases.    The  legal 
review  processes  showed  that  the  commanders  did  not  act 
arbitrarily  or  capriciously  in  making  these  decisions.    The 
commanders’  ultimate  decisions  on  the  Article  15  actions  are 
firmly  based  on  the  evidence  of  each  case  and  the  punishment 
decisions  were  well  within  the  limits  of  the  commanders’ 
authority and discretion.   
 
The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit B.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 1 March 2012 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit 
C).  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 

 3

of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 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  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2011-05095 in Executive Session on 31 July 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-2011-05095: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Dec 11, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 8 Feb 12. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Mar 12. 
 
 
 
 

  
Panel Chair 

 4