AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01138 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1.  The  Article  15  punishment  imposed  on  her  on  27  Apr  09  be 
removed from her records.  
 
2  The  AF  Form  910,  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR)  (AB  thru 
TSgt), for the period 5 Sep 08 thru 4 Sep 09 (Referral Report) be 
removed from her records. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
1)  Her  rating  chain  and  leadership  misrepresented  various 
statements she made and violated her due process rights.   
 
2)  She was not read her rights until after she was pressured to 
implicate herself.  She was not aware of a possible investigation 
until 8 Apr 09, one week after the said incident. 
 
3)  The  inconsistencies  led  to  an  unjust  Article  15  action  and 
ultimately  the  Article  15  being  reported  on  her  contested 
evaluation. 
 
4)  She did not lie to her supervisors.  She was punished for a 
few  minor  inconsistencies.    The  witness  statements  that  formed 
the basis of the nonjudicial punishment (NJP) action were dated 
 7  to  14  days  after  the  alleged  false  official  statements  were 
made. 
 
She  did  not  state  what  friend  she  had  to  assist,  however,  her 
supervisors took it upon themselves to assume who it was. 
 
In  support  of  her  request,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal 
statement,  copies  of  witness  statements,  and  the  Article 
15 paperwork. 
 
The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 
The  applicant  is  currently  serving  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  in 
the grade of staff sergeant. 
 
As  a  result  of  an  investigation,  the  applicant  was  offered  NJP 
under  Article  15,  Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ).    She 
was  charged  with  two  specifications  of  making  a  false  official 
statement.  The applicant was afforded an opportunity to consult 
with  defense  counsel,  accepted  the  Article  15,  and  waived  her 
right  to  demand  trial  by  court-martial.    She  elected  to  present 
written  matters,  but  waived  her  right  to  make  a  personal 
appearance  before  the  commander.    On  27  Apr  09,  the  commander  
imposed  punishment  consisting  of  a  suspended  reduction  to  the 
grade  of  senior  airman,  30  days  of  extra  duty,  and  a  reprimand.  
The  applicant  declined  to  appeal  the  commander’s  decision.    The 
Article  15  action  was  reviewed  and  determined  to  be  legally 
sufficient. 
 

 The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force at Exhibits C, D and E.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove 
the  Article  15  from  her  records.    The  applicant  has  not 
demonstrated any error or injustice.   
 
The applicant alleges that the statements made by her supervisor 
and  NCOIC  were  incorrect.    Nonetheless,  the  applicant  had  the 
opportunity  to  rebut  these  statements  upon  the  offer  of  NJP.  
While she submitted matters to her commander in consideration of 
the original NJP action, she declined the opportunity to make a 
personal  appearance  before  him.    She  was  afforded  the  right  to 
appeal her commander’s decision, but declined to do so.  At all 
times,  she  was  represented  by  a  fully  qualified  appointed 
military defense counsel.  The commander was in the best position 
to evaluate the evidence in the applicant’s case, and exercised 
the discretion granted to him by the applicant when she accepted 
the Article 15, and found the NJP appropriate in this case.  The 
legal review process showed the commander did not act arbitrarily 
or  capriciously  in  making  his  decision.    A  review  of  the  NJP 
action indicates the applicant’s rights were observed throughout 
the process. 
 
The applicant does not make a compelling argument that the Board 
should  overturn  the  commander’s  original  NJP  decision  on  the 
basis  of  injustice.    The  commander’s  ultimate  decision  on  the 
Article 15 action is firmly based on the evidence of the case and 
the  punishment  was  well  within  the  limits  of  the  commander’s 
authority and discretion. 
 

 
 

2

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.  
 
AFPC/DPSID  recommends  denial  of  her  request  to  remove  her  EPR.  
DPSID states based on the lack of corroborating evidence provided 
by the applicant, and the presumed sufficiency pertaining to the 
issuance  of  the  Article  15,  they  recommend  the  report  not  be 
voided from the applicant’s permanent record.  The applicant has 
not provided compelling evidence to show the report is unjust or 
inaccurate as written. 
 
In accordance with AFI 36-2406,  Officer  and  Enlisted  Evaluation 
Systems, Paragraph 1.3.1., Evaluators are strongly encouraged to 
comment  in  performance  reports  on  misconduct  that  reflects  a 
disregard  of  the  law,  whether  civil  law  or  the  UCMJ,  or  when 
adverse  actions  such  as  Article  15’s,  Letters  of  Reprimand, 
Admonishment, Counseling, or placement on the Control Roster have 
been taken.  The applicant does not offer any evidence that would 
substantiate  her  assertions  of  inconsistencies  in  the 
investigation  of  incidents  by  her  rating  chain.    To  prove  any 
allegation  of  unfair  or  overly  harsh  treatment,  the  applicant 
would  need  to  provide  the  results  of  an  independent  Inspector 
General  (IG)  Report,  Command  Directed  Investigation  (CDI)  or 
other  official  investigation  findings  germane  to  her  appeal, 
which are credible sources.   
 
The  applicant  was  given  the  opportunity  to  rebut  the 
administrative actions as well as the referral report itself, and 
declined to do so.  No evidence has been provided in the appeal 
that any of the administrative actions commented on in the report 
have  been  rescinded  or  otherwise  invalidated.    Based  upon  the 
presumed sufficiency of the Article 15 as served, JAJM’s provided 
advisory, and no evidence that the Article 15 was ever set aside, 
its mention in the applicant’s contested report was appropriate, 
as  such  there  is  no  basis  to  support  removal  of  the  contested 
report. 
 
An  evaluation  report  is  considered  to  represent  the  rating 
chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered.  Once a report 
is  accepted  for  file,  only  strong  evidence  to  the  contrary 
warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record.  The 
burden  of  proof  is  on  the  applicant,  and  she  has  not 
substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith 
by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. 
 
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. 
 
AFPC/DPSOE  deferred  to  the  recommendations  of  JAJM  and  DPSID.  
DPSOE states based on the recommendation of JAJM to deny setting 
aside  the  applicant’s  Article  15,  and  DPSID’s  that  her  EPR  is 
accurate as written and should not be voided or removed, they do 
not recommend promotion/supplemental consideration. 
 
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 

 
 

3

 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
On 11 Sep 12, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  As of 
this  date,  a  response  has  not  been  received  by  this  office 
(Exhibit F). 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 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 
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  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  Docket  Number    
BC-2012-01138  in  Executive  Session  on  29  Nov  12,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number 
BC-2012-01138 was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Mar 13, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

 
 

4

    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 10 May 12. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 May 12. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 21 Jun 12. 
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Sep 12. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Panel Chair 

  
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

5