RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03251
							COUNSEL:  NONE
                   				HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 
punishments, dated 10 September 2009 and 3 November 2009, be 
set-aside.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Article 15 she received for damaging property during a 
vehicle accident and leaving the scene of an accident is in 
error or unjust because she took responsibility for her actions 
and worked with her superiors and local nationals to fix the 
relationship.  In regards to her 3 November 2009 Article 15, 
there was insufficient evidence of her being tardy to support an 
Article 15 punishment.  

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of her 
Article 15s, Law Enforcement documentation, Report of 
Investigation, response to Article 15, character references, and 
memorandums for record (MFRs).  

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
served on active duty from 29 July 2008 to 28 January 2010.  She 
received two Article 15s and two Letters of Counseling (LOC) 
between 13 August 2009 and 12 November 2009. 

On 13 August 2009, the applicant was given an LOC for failure to 
go to a mandatory appointment at the time and place prescribed 
in violation of Article 87, Uniform Code of Military justice 
(UCMJ).  

On 10 September 2009, the applicant was offered non-judicial 
punishment for willfully and wrongfully damaging an off-base 
business in access of $500 damage in violation of Article 109, 
UCMJ; and, wrongfully leaving a scene of an accident without 
making her identity known in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.  As 
a result, she received punishment consisting of a reprimand and 
base restriction for 45 days.  

On 3 November 2009, the applicant was offered non-judicial 
punishment for failure to go to her appointed place of duty at 
the time prescribed on divers occasions on or about 29 September 
2009 to on or about 10 October 2009, without authority; and, 
failure to go to her appointed place of duty at the time 
prescribed on 15 October 2009, all in violation of Article 86, 
UCMJ.  As a result, she received reduction in grade to airman 
basic (E-1) with a new date of rank of 13 November 2009; and, 
base restriction for 30 days.  

On 12 November 2009, the applicant received an LOC for 
dereliction in the performance of duties by failing to complete 
the office closing shift checklist, a standard procedure, in 
violation of Article 92, UCMJ.  

On 20 January 2010, the applicant was notified of her 
commander’s intent to recommend her for a general (under 
honorable conditions) discharge for Misconduct: Minor 
Disciplinary Infractions, under the authority of Air Force 
Program Directive (AFPD) 36-32 and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 
36-3208, paragraph 5.49.  The applicant acknowledged her 
commander’s intent and waived her rights to consult counsel and 
to submit statements in her own behalf.  Following the Staff 
Judge Advocate’s finding of the case being legally sufficient, 
the discharge authority approved the recommended discharge on 21 
January 2010.

The applicant was involuntarily released from active duty on 
28 January 2010 with a general (under honorable conditions) 
discharge.  

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial.  JAJM states neither of the 
applicant’s Article 15s appear to be an error or injustice which 
would justify setting-aside these punishments.  The applicant 
had an opportunity to raise the arguments; she is making now, to 
her commander at the time of the non-judicial punishment 
proceedings.  In addition, she had the opportunity to appeal her 
commander’s decisions.  It is beyond three years since these 
punishments were imposed.  The applicant has not shown; nor can 
they see, any reason why the Board should grant this late 
request.  

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 6 September 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or an 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or 
injustice.  We note the applicant’s contentions that the Article 
15 punishments she received were unjust; however, the applicant 
has not provided evidence to show that the actions taken  were 
arbitrary, capricious or not a reasonable response to the 
applicant’s offenses.  While the impact of these actions on the 
applicant’s career may be regrettable, we do not find the 
actions serve to make the applicant the victim of error or 
injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we do not find it in the interest of justice 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-2013-03251 in Executive Session on 10 April 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                     , Panel Chair
	                     , Member
	                     , Member



The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-03251:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Jul 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 26 Aug 13.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Sep 13. 




								                           
								Panel Chair
4

3