RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02296 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

The Article 15 she received on 10 Apr 03 be removed from her 
records. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She was accused of something that she did not do by an upset ex-
girlfriend. Because of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, she 
was unable to disclose their relationship and completely defend 
herself. As a result, she received an Article 15. 

 

She forfeited 50 percent of her pay for two months, the 
punishment was entered into her promotion and permanent records 
and, as a result, she was not selected for promotion to the 
grade of, Major. She was under the impression that the Article 
15 would be removed in April 2010 but it was not removed. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15 Mar 94. 

 

On 10 Apr 03, the applicant received an Article 15 for intent to 
defraud by falsely pretending to own household goods that 
belonged to someone else and wrongfully obtaining from the Air 
Force services of shipment of household goods from Murray, Utah 
to Upper Marlboro, Maryland, in violation of Article 134, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Her punishment 
consisted of forfeiture of $1,500 pay per month for two months 
($750.00 suspended) and a reprimand. 

 

On 10 Apr 03, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the Article 
15 punishment and, on the same date, elected not to appeal the 
punishment or submit statements on her behalf. The Article 15 
was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient on that 
same date. 


On 30 Sep 03, the applicant voluntarily separated from the Air 
Force under Honorable conditions and was credited with 10 years, 
9 months, and 16 days of total active service. 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to set 
aside the nonjudicial punishment, indicating the applicant has 
not shown a clear error or injustice. The applicant alleges an 
injustice that she was falsely accused and her commander 
punished her because of his prejudice toward her lifestyle and 
she was unable to disclose her homosexual relationship in any 
effort to defend the allegations. However, she does not allege 
error in how the Article 15 was processed. 

 

Nonjudicial punishment is authorized under Article 15, UCMJ and 
governed by the Manuel for Court-Martial (MCM) and AFI 51-202, Nonjudicial Punishment. This procedure permits commanders to 
dispose of certain offenses without trial by court-martial, 
unless the member objects. Service members are notified by 
their commander of the nature of the charged offenses, the 
supporting evidence and the commander’s intent to impose 
nonjudicial punishment. The member may consult with a defense 
counsel to determine whether to accept the nonjudicial 
punishment or demand trial by court-martial. Acceptance of 
nonjudicial punishment is not and admission of guilt, it is 
simply a choice of forum. It is also not, when imposed, a 
criminal conviction. 

 

A member accepting Article 15 proceedings may submit written 
matters and have a hearing with the imposing commander. The 
commander considers any submitted information offered by the 
member and must be convinced by reliable evidence the member 
committed the offense before imposing punishment. Members who 
wish to appeal the commander’s determination or the severity of 
the imposed punishment may appeal to the next higher commander. 
The appeal authority may deny the appeal, remove or modify the 
Article 15 if he or she disagrees in whole or in part with the 
action. A commander considering a case for disposition under 
Article 15 exercises discretion in evaluation the case, both as 
to whether punishment is warranted and, if so, the nature and 
extent of the punishment. The exercise of that discretion 
should generally not be reversed or otherwise changed on appeal 
by the Board absent good cause. 

 

The applicant fails to make a compelling argument that the Board 
should overturn the commander’s original nonjudicial punishment 
decision on the basis of injustice. Except for a blanket 
denial, the applicant offers no evidence in her submission that 
she did not, in fact, commit the criminal activity of defrauding 
the government with which she was charged. She simply offers 
the proposition that she believes she was discriminated against 


based on her homosexuality and that she was not permitted to 
raise that issue in her own defense. 

 

A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
remove the Article 15 from her military record, addressing only 
the reason for the applicant’s separation. The discharge was 
consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of 
the discharge regulation and the applicant did not submit any 
evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in 
the separation process. The applicant’s approved separation was 
based solely on her request and had nothing to do with her 
receipt of an Article 15. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/PB recommends that AFPC/DPSIPR comment on the 
appropriateness of having the NJP removed from her Master 
Personnel Record (MPR), indicating they are the OPR for MPRs. 
However, at the time of the applicant’s promotion board, her 
Officer Selection Record (OSR) contained the Article 15 
punishment and the decision to file paperwork. In accordance 
with AFI 36-3208, Military Personnel Records System, the Article 
15 remained in her OSR at the time of her separation from active 
duty and in conjunction with her separation from active duty, 
her OSR was transferred to the Air Reserve Personnel Center. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/PB evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

AFPC/DPSIRP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
remove the Article 15 from her permanent military records, 
indicating IAW AFI 36-2608, Chapter 8, paragraph 8.11.2.3, the 
Article 15 is permanently retained in the MPerRGp 
(Correspondence and Miscellaneous Group) unless set aside in its 
entirety IAW AFI 51-202, or its removal is directed by the Air 
Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR). 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIRP evaluation is at Exhibit F. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 17 Sep 12, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit G). 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 an error or injustice. We took 
careful 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. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, 
we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, 
sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence of record or 
the rationale provided by the Air Force Legal Operations Agency 
and other pertinent advisories. We are not persuaded by the 
evidence that the actions taken by her commander were beyond his 
scope of authority, inappropriate, or arbitrary and capricious. 
Therefore we do not find a basis to recommend granting the 
relief sought. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2012-02296 in Executive Session on 28 February 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-02296 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 May 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 3 Jul 12. 


 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 13 Jul 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/PB, dated 20 Aug 12. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPSIRP, dated 30 Aug 12. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Sep 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair