AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00597
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
IN THE MATTER OF:
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His rank of sergeant be reinstated.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was suffering from a medical condition that caused him to fall
asleep at his post. He is currently receiving treatment for his
sleep disorder and believes he should not have been punished
because of his medical condition.
In support of his request, the applicant provides excerpt of his
personnel and medical records.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was notified by his commander that he was
recommending him for discharge from the Air Force under the
provisions of paragraph 135, Manual for Courts-Martial 1969 and
AFR 111-9, paragraph 4(c) and paragraph 8. The specific reasons
for this action were: 1) failure to repair and 2) sleeping on
post. He received two Article 15s. In a letter from his
commander, dated 24 Dec 72, paragraph 1m. states, “Medical or
other data meriting consideration: Individual has problems over
sleeping which stems from neurological problems.” In the same
letter, paragraph 2 states, “Suspension of the reduction is not
considered appropriate because the offense was committed while
the installation was under threat of attack, during a month and
in an area that Hostile Fire Pay was approved.”
The applicant received an honorable discharge on 28 Sep 73 after
serving 4 years, 3 months, and 2 days on active duty.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of
the Air Force, which are at Exhibit B and C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE defers their recommendation by stating the applicant
was promoted to sergeant on 1 Jun 71 and received a reduction to
airman first class on 31 Dec 71. He was again reduced to the
rank of airman basic on 8 Dec 72 for sleeping on post. The
punishment was later mitigated to a reduction to airman on 20 Mar
73. Further, the applicant was promoted to the rank of airman
first class effective 8 Aug 73, which was just prior to his
honorable discharge.
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit B.
AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial stating that the applicant’s request
is untimely. In the alternative, the application should be
denied as the applicant has not shown a clear error or injustice.
Further, the applicant does not make a compelling argument that
the Board should overturn the commander’s original non-judicial
punishment decision based on an injustice. The applicant’s
commander made a decision based on the evidence of the case and
the punishment decision was well within the limits of the
commander’s authority and discretion.
The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 22 Aug 12 for review and comment within 30 days. 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
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 Associate Chief of the Military Justice Division and adopt
his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant
has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in
2
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-2012-00597 in Executive Session on 16 Oct 12, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Feb 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 13 Jul 12.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 14 Jun 12.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Aug 12.
Panel Chair
Panel Chair
Member
Member
3
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01056
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01056 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Article 15 and Unfavorable Information File (UIF) be removed from his record and that his rank be restored. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends the Board not grant the relief sought regarding the Article 15 because there was no error or injustice with the process. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01954
With that perspective, the commander exercised the discretion that the applicant granted him when the applicant accepted the Article 15 and found nonjudicial punishment appropriate in this case. The applicant’s case has undergone an exhaustive review by the Air Force office of primary responsibility and AFLOA/JAJM; however, other than his own assertions, the applicant has not presented any evidence that the commander abused his discretionary authority in imposing the nonjudicial punishment....
3 AFBCMR 96- 01136 Therefore, if the AFBCMR overturns his court-martial action, he would only be entitled to have his former grade of airman reinstated with an effective date and date of rank of 3 May 72. Concerning the applicant's request that his court- martial conviction be overturned, we note that 10 USC 1552(f) limits this Board to correction of a record to reflect actions taken by the reviewing official and action on the sentence of a court-martial for the purpose of clemency. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05825
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05825 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Article 15 imposed on 4 Mar 13 be removed from his records. However, this error does not warrant setting aside the entire NJP as the applicant requests. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04858
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit H. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served on active duty from 5 February 2002 to 4 October 2007. However, further evaluation by Mental Health personnel, subsequently ruled-out the applicants diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder and indicated his symptoms supported a diagnosis of Personality Disorder. For an accounting of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2009-03787
A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 8 Dec 10 for review and comment, within 30 days. We have carefully reviewed the applicant’s submission and the evidence of record and do not fine a sufficient basis to excuse the untimely filing of this application. The applicant did not file within three...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02298
On or about 18 Oct 11, he was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to refrain from sleeping during a meeting, as it was his duty to do, as evidenced by a Record of Proceedings of Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment, dated 30 Nov 11. c. On or about 30 Aug 11, he was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully returned late from lunch and refused to perform tasks assigned to him, as it was his duty to do, as evidenced by a Record of...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03187
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicants master personnel records, are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of responsibility which are included at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The author of the legal office opinion noted that the LOD determination was most...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02425
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02425 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00732
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit D. _______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends the Board deny the applicant’s request as untimely or on the merits. He also claims that the Numbered Air Force returned the Article 15 action because of the punishment's severity. ...