RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04267 

 

 JASON A. EADDY COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

The nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) imposed on him be set 
aside and removed from his records and his rank of staff 
sergeant/E-5 be reinstated. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

On 6 June 2012, he transferred data to an XLS spreadsheet from a 
previously saved document to send to the Installation Spectrum 
Manager. The information was processed in that format to ease 
the customer’s readability. Prior to the transfer, he called 
another staff sergeant to observe him run the COMPUSEC scan and 
transfer of data into the XLS format. The staff sergeant also 
witnessed him run the COMPUSEC TOOL BOX program. This program 
ensures the transferred data is unclassified. Unfortunately, 
data in XLS format cannot be scanned by this program and the 
classified information was not flagged. This incident caused a 
one-week work stoppage on unclassified computers for the entire 
office. It was later deemed that he needed to receive some form 
of punishment for creating the incident. 

 

He was formally accused of dereliction of duty, in violation of 
Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on 18 June 
2012. There was no security report used as evidence against 
him, in accordance with ACC Instruction 33-181. To date, the 
security manager has yet to see a report on the incident. He 
believes there was evidence used against him, of which, he had 
no knowledge. Additionally, near the end of the Article 15 
process, two of his co-workers provided statements that he has 
yet to see. 

 

The evidence used to support the Article 15 consisted of a 
Memorandum for Record from a chief master sergeant stating that 
he did not follow the communication task orders (CTO). After 
reviewing the task orders, along with speaking to his security 
manager for clarification, he learned these documents have 
nothing to do with two-person integrity when transferring data. 
The two CTOs referenced require that you submit paperwork to the 
wing Information Assurance Office to authorize access to the 
classified system. Unless the wing has documentation on file, 


no one is authorized to perform the transfer. A monthly log 
must be submitted to the wing annotating what was transferred. 
The CTOs basically lift the ban on thumb drives and authorizes 
their use as an option. 

 

Unfortunately, this was his second security incident. The first 
occurred at a previous base involving an Ipod in a secured 
location. Due to this previous incident, he believes the 
commander presumed he was guilty from the beginning. He was 
used as an example as there have been other security incidents 
in the branch. The unwillingness of the commander to follow 
proper protocol to ensure that an investigation was done has 
left too many holes in this process for him to be punished under 
Article 15. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a member of the Air Force serving in the grade 
of senior airman. On 18 June 2012, he was notified that his 
commander was considering whether or not to punish him under 
Article 15, UCMJ, for violation of Article 92, dereliction of 
duty. Specifically, it was alleged that he was derelict in the 
performance of his duties by willfully failing to follow the 
twelve step procedures, by failing to use two-person integrity 
when transferring data from a classified to an unclassified 
system. 

 

The applicant consulted counsel, waived his right to trial by 
court-martial and submitted a written presentation for his 
commander’s consideration. He did not request a personal 
appearance before the commander. On 25 June 2012, the commander 
found that he committed the offense and imposed punishment 
consisting of a reduction in rank to senior airman, with a new 
date of rank of 25 June 2012, and a reprimand. He appealed the 
punishment and on 25 July 2012, the appellate authority denied 
his appeal. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. Nonjudicial punishment is 
authorized by Article 15 of the UCMJ and governed by the Manual 
for Courts-Martial (MCM). This procedure permits commanders to 
dispose of certain offenses without trial by court-martial 
unless the service member objects. Accepting the proceedings is 
simply a choice of forum, not an admission of guilt. It is not 
a criminal conviction. 

 


A member accepting Article 15 proceedings may submit matters to, 
and have a hearing with the imposing commander. The member may 
also have a spokesperson at the hearing, may request that 
witnesses appear and testify and may present evidence. The 
commander must consider any information offered by the member 
and must be convinced by reliable evidence that the member 
committed the offense before imposing punishment. Members who 
wish to contest the determination or the severity of the 
punishment may appeal to the next higher commander. The 
appellate authority may deny the appeal altogether, or remove or 
modify the Article 15 if they disagree in whole or in part with 
the action. The commander considering a case for disposition 
under Article 15 exercises discretion in evaluating 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, 
or by the Board absent good cause. 

 

The MCM provides for certain relief from punishment, 
specifically, mitigation, remission, suspension and set aside. 
A set aside of an Article 15 is the removal of the punishment 
from the record and the restoration of the service members 
rights, privileges, pay or property affected by the punishment. 
Setting aside an Article 15 restores the member to the position 
held before imposition of the punishment. Set aside should not 
be routinely granted, rather, it is used strictly in the rare 
and unusual case where a genuine question about the service 
member’s guilt arises or where the best interest of the Air 
Force would be served. 

 

The applicant alleges that a security incident report was never 
accomplished prior to receiving the Article 15. Had it been 
conducted, the commander would have had more information, like 
the fact that the operative checklist was not clear regarding 
the transfer procedures. Additionally, the checklist was not 
clear regarding the transfer procedures and not posted prior to 
the incident. It was only made available after the applicant 
was found guilty of this violation. Upon review of his written 
appeal, that also highlighted these arguments, the commander 
denied his appeal. The appellate authority reviewed the appeal 
and denied it as well. The legal review process showed the 
commander did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in making this 
decision. The commander had the best opportunity to evaluate 
the evidence of the case and found nonjudicial punishment was 
appropriate. 

 

The applicant does not make a compelling argument that the 
Article 15 should be overturned based on an injustice. The 
commander’s ultimate decision on the Article 15 action is firmly 
based on the evidence of the case and was within the limits of 
their authority and discretion. The applicant has not shown a 
clear error or injustice. 

 

The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit B. 


 

AFPC/DPSOE defers recommendation to AFLOA/JAJM. The applicant 
tested for promotion to technical sergeant on 13 March 2012. 
Once the Article 15 was imposed, he became ineligible for 
promotion consideration. Based on his date of rank, he will not 
be eligible for promotion consideration to staff sergeant until 
cycle 13E5. Should the Board remove the Article 15 and restore 
his rank to staff sergeant, he would be eligible for 
supplemental promotion consideration to technical sergeant 
beginning with cycle 12E6. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He was disheartened by the review of his case and concurs the 
commander acted within her right to issue him an Article 15. 
Nevertheless, the information that was presented to the 
commander was misconstrued, tainted and unverified. It painted 
a false picture of what occurred. 

 

He reiterates the facts surrounding the incident and states that 
he did, in fact, contact a second person prior to the transfer 
of data. He states that he had not been trained on the transfer 
procedures prior to arriving on station. He only received 
verbal instructions and on the job training concerning 
classified to unclassified transfers. It was after the incident 
that the office was mandated to have a checklist posted at each 
terminal. However, the information presented to the commander 
stated the checklist was posted and that he had received 
training. He also states the other non-commissioned officer 
involved only received a letter of counseling for not ensuring 
he used the entire checklist. 

 

He respects the decision of the commander. His does not intend 
to undermine his commander; however, he knows that commanders 
should not make decisions with misconstrued, tainted and 
unverified information. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

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 injustice. We took 
careful notice of the applicant's complete submission, to 
include his response to the Air Force advisory, in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Military Justice Division and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that 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 
Military Justice Division. We are not persuaded by the evidence 
that the action taken by his commander was beyond her scope of 
authority, inappropriate, or arbitrary and capricious. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 BCMR Docket Number 
BC-2012-04267 in Executive Session on 4 April 2013, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

Panel Chair 

Member 

Member 

 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-04267 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Aug 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 22 Oct 12. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, APPC/DPSOE, dated 29 Oct 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Nov 12. 


 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 4 Dec 12, 

 w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair