Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01719
Original file (BC 2013 01719.txt) Auto-classification: Approved


RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:	BC-2013-01719 
COUNSEL: NONE
	HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Article 15 nonjudicial punishment received in November 2012 
be set-aside.



APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was served an Article 15 on 20 November 2012, for a positive 
urinalysis result for a narcotic prescription. Based on evidence 
from his physician and reviewing physician, the medication he was 
prescribed was valid at the time of the alleged infraction. He 
and his legal counsel followed the correct actions for each level 
of appeal; however, his commander refused to act upon the 
evidence presented.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of 
electronic communications and memorandums from his medical 
providers.

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 technical sergeant (E-6).

On 9 November 2012, the applicant was offered nonjudicial 
punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice 
(UCMJ). He was charged with one specification of wrongful use of 
Oxycodone, a Schedule II controlled substance, in violation of 
Article 112a, UCMJ. The applicant was afforded the opportunity 
to consult defense counsel, accepted the Article 15, and waived 
his right to demand trial by court-martial. He elected to 
present written matters; however, did not elect to make a 
personal appearance before his commander. On 20 November 2012, 
the commander decided the applicant had committed the charged 
offense and imposed punishment consisting of a reduction to the 
grade of staff sergeant, forfeiture of $1,506.00 pay per month 
for two months (suspended for six months), 30 days extra duty, 
and a reprimand.




The applicant appealed the commander’s decision stating he 
believed he had accidentally taken Percocet, an older medication 
that he had been legally prescribed. The applicant’s defense 
attorney also submitted a written response where the defense 
attorney argued the applicant had innocently ingested the 
Percocet as it looks like other medication the applicant was 
currently taking and it must have been mixed in a travel 
container the applicant used during that timeframe. Based on 
what the applicant provided, the applicant’s commander granted 
the appeal in part and suspended the reduction in grade to staff 
sergeant for six months. The appellate commander denied the rest 
of the appeal on 7 December 2012. The Article 15 action was 
reviewed and found to be legally sufficient.

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s 
military service record, are contained in the evaluation provided 
by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C.



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLOA/JAJM recommends approval. JAJM states that a set-aside of 
an Article 15 is the removal of the punishment from the record 
and the restoration of the service member’s rights, privileges, 
pay, or property affected by the punishment. Setting aside an 
Article 15 action restores the member to the position held before 
imposition of the punishment, as if the action had never been 
initiated. The power to set-aside a punishment should ordinarily 
be exercised within four months of the imposition of the 
nonjudicial punishment. A set-aside of punishment should not be 
routinely granted. Rather, a set-aside is to be used strictly in 
the rare and unusual case where a genuine question about the 
service member’s guilt arises or where the best interests of the 
Air Force would be served. The applicant does allege an 
injustice in his receipt of this nonjudicial punishment. He 
provides documentation stating he had a valid prescription for 
Percocet at the time of his positive drug test thus his use of 
Percocet was lawful. In addition, the administrative discharge 
board found he did not wrongly used Oxycodone and recommended 
retention.

The applicant does make a compelling argument that the Board 
should overturn the commander’s original, nonjudicial punishment 
decision on the basis of an injustice.

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 10 May 2013, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit 
D). 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.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an injustice. After a thorough 
review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, 
we believe relief is warranted. The Board notes the Air Force 
office of primary responsibility indicates the applicant has 
shown a clear injustice and recommends the Board grant the 
requested relief. We agree. The facts indicate the applicant 
had a valid prescription for Percocet at the time of his positive 
drug test, thus his use of Percocet was lawful. In addition, the 
administrative discharge board found he did not wrongfully use 
Oxycodone and recommended the applicant retention. Therefore, we 
agree with the Military Justice Division, Air Force Legal 
Operations Agency recommendation to set aside the nonjudicial 
punishment and all rights, privileges and property be restored. 
Accordingly, we recommend the record be corrected as indicated 
below.

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.



THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the nonjudicial 
punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of 
Military Justice, initiated on 9 November 2012, and imposed on
20 November 2012, be set-aside and expunged from his records, and 
all rights, privileges and property of which he may have been 
deprived be restored.




The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-01719 in Executive Session on 6 February 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013- 
01719 was considered:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 5 Apr 13, with atchs. 
Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.	Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 9 May 13. 
Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 13.



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00082

    Original file (BC-2010-00082.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He received a BCD after trying to get the Air Force to help him with an addiction. However, he was not provided the proper treatment for an opiate addiction and shortly after asking for and not receiving the proper help began writing prescriptions for Oxycodone. The applicant was able to relate in his unsworn statement his contention that he self-referred for help with his addiction and that the Air Force did not give him proper treatment.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01740

    Original file (BC 2014 01740.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01740 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP) under Article 15 imposed on 28 Apr 14 be set aside. On 8 Apr 14, the applicant appealed the commander's decision and sought to have the Article 15 set aside. In this case, the applicant's commander was in the best position to review the evidence presented at the time of the Article...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02568

    Original file (BC-2012-02568.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The applicant alleges injustice in that the commander failed to accept his excuse for his failure to replace a damaged tire on an aircraft he was responsible for recovering. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04852

    Original file (BC-2012-04852.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    According to copies of documents extracted from the Automated Records Management System (ARMS), by way of an AF Form 3070, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings, the applicant’s commander offered him nonjudicial punishment (NJP) proceedings under Article 15 UCMJ, on 10 April 2006, for one specification of a violation of Article 134, Adultery. However, the Air Force does not recognize any time served after a member separates. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02798

    Original file (BC 2013 02798.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    She recanted her original statement and in Apr 2013, she provided a memorandum in support of setting aside the Article 15. The commander at the time of the Article 15 had the best opportunity to evaluate the evidence for this action. A set aside of an Article 15 is the removal of the punishment from the record and the restoration of the service member's rights, privileges, pay, or property affected by the punishment.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04779

    Original file (BC 2013 04779.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04779 ER COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His grade of airman first class (E-3) be reinstated as of 16 May 13. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) which are included at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01954

    Original file (BC-2012-01954.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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....

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00903

    Original file (BC 2013 00903.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His Article 15 received on 3 Jan 13 be set aside and Unfavorable Information File (UIF) be removed from his record. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04267

    Original file (BC-2012-04267.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A member accepting Article 15 proceedings may submit matters to, and have a hearing with the imposing commander. He also states the other non-commissioned officer involved only received a letter of counseling for not ensuring he used the entire checklist. ________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04917

    Original file (BC 2013 04917.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 15 Jul 13, his commander requested he be reinstated to the grade of E-3; however, the commander relied upon incorrect information concerning how much time he had to wait before submitting the request, and therefore failed to submit it on time. The applicant’s commander and first sergeant submitted letters of support for the applicant requesting the Board restore the applicant’s rank of E-3 with an effective date of rank of 16 May 13. However, if the Board votes to grant this request, as...