AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00498 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF:   
 
 
 
     
 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His Article 15, imposed on 30 January 2006, be removed from his 
Officer  and  Command  Selection  Record  (OCSR)  and  he  receive 
Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  consideration  by  his  In-the-
Promotion  Zone  (IPZ)  Calendar  Year  2010D  (CY10D)  Major  Central 
Selection Board (CSB).   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He received his Article 15 on 30 January 2006; however, it wasn’t 
until  six  months  later  (21  August  2006),  that  he  received 
notification of his commander’s intent to file the Article 15 in 
his  Officer  Selection  Record  (OSR)  and  OCSR.    This  action  was 
unjust and unwarranted because he did not do anything wrong after 
receiving  the  Article  15  punishment.    His  commander  did  not 
comply  with  the  filing  guidance  in  Air  Force  Instruction  (AFI) 
36-2608, paragraphs 2.5 and 2.5.4., and no justifiable reason was 
provided  by  leadership  for  the  late  decision  except  that  they 
“forgot  to  do  it.”    Because  his  commander  neglected  to  act  in 
accordance  with  filing  procedures,  his  actions  negatively 
impacted his selection for promotion to major by the CY10D Major 
CSB.   
 
In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal 
statement, and copies of the Article 15, OSR/OCSR filing decision 
documents,  an  excerpt  of  AFI  36-2608,  and  an  electronic 
communication.   
 
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 captain (O-3).  On 30 January 2006, his 
commander  imposed  nonjudicial  punishment  on  the  applicant  for 
wrongfully having sexual intercourse with a married woman not his 
wife,  in  violation  of  Article  134,  Uniform  Code  of  Military 
Justice  (UCMJ).    The  applicant  accepted  the  Article  15  and  did 
not appeal.  On 21 August 2006, the same commander notified the 

applicant of his intent to file the Article 15 in the applicant’s 
OSR and OCSR.  On 25 August 2006, the applicant submitted matters 
regarding  the  decision,  to  include  the  timing  of  the  decision, 
and  asked  the  commander  not  to  place  the  Article  15  in  his 
OSR/OCSR.  Additionally, on 28 August 2006, the applicant’s Area 
Defense  Counsel  (ADC)  provided  comments  to  the  commander 
regarding  both  the  filing  decision  and  the  timing  of  the 
decision.  After reviewing all of the matters provided, both the 
commander  and  the  appellate/reviewing  authority  determined  the 
Article 15 action should be placed in the applicant’s OSR/OCSR.   
 
The applicant has two non-selections to the grade of major by the 
CY10D and CY11D Major CSBs.   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/PB recommends denial.  PB states that AFI 36-2608, Chapter 
8, establishes procedures for filing Article 15’s into the OSR.  
Specifically,  paragraph  2.5  indicates  a  commander  imposing 
punishment must decide at the time punishment is imposed whether 
or  not  to  file  the  Article  15  in  the  OSR.    In  addition,  the 
commander will process the Article 15 and filing decision letter 
in an expeditious manner.   
 
PB indicates the commander’s decision to file the Article 15 was 
untimely  as  is  the  explanation  of  “forgetting”  regretful.  
Nonetheless, the imposing commander and reviewing authority heard 
all of the arguments regarding the decision and the timing of the 
decision  and  still  opted  to  file  the  Article  15.    Several 
subsequent senior Air Force officers have reviewed this case over 
the years and all of them have stood by the original decision to 
file.  The applicant offers no evidence that the “timeliness” of 
the original decision negatively impacted his career, beyond the 
impact  of  the  Article  15  itself.    Additionally,  even  if  the 
Article 15 were to be removed from his OSR, it is highly doubtful 
the  applicant  would  have  been  competitive  for  promotion  as  the 
Article 15 and the behavior leading to the Article 15 are also 
documented  in  his  referral  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR) 
rendered  for  the  period  13  September  2005  through  12  September 
2006.   
 
The complete PB evaluation is at Exhibit C.   
 
AFPC/DPSOO states that their evaluation requires them to rely on 
opinions of other Air Force experts.  As such, based on AFPC/PB’s 
recommendation  to  deny  the  applicant’s  request  to  remove  the 
Article  15  retroactively,  they  recommend  denial  for  SSB 
consideration.   
 
The complete DPSOO 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 10 April 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.  We note the applicant’s contention that the untimely 
filing  of  his  Article  15  in  his  OSR  negatively  impacted  his 
selection for promotion to major.  However, based on the fact his 
referral OPR, which was part of his record at the time he met the 
promotion board, mentioned the applicant’s receipt of an Article 
15  and  the  behavior  leading  to  the  Article  15,  the  untimely 
filing,  did  not  introduce  additional  information  not  already 
available  to  the  promotion  board.    As  such,  in  our  view,  it 
cannot  be  concluded  that  filing  the  information  in  his  OSR 
precluded him from receiving fair and equitable consideration for 
promotion.    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. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

3

The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number  BC-2012-00498  in  Executive  Session  on  2  October  2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 

 
 
 

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

  
Panel Chair 

 
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-00498: 
 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Feb 12, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/PB, dated 16 Mar 12. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 2 Apr 12. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Apr 12. 

 
 
 
 

 

4