RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03470
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 offered on
15 Dec 10 and imposed on 22 Dec 10, be set aside and removed
from his records.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The Article 15 punishment he received was based on a false
accusation that he pulled a fire alarm that later proved to be
false. As a result, he was charged with multiple violations
that would not have been charged had he not been falsely
accused.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicants military personnel records indicate he enlisted
in the Regular Air Force on 21 Jul 09.
On 22 Dec 10, the applicant received an Article 15 for being
incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties and drunk
and disorderly, in violation of Article 134 of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice (UCMJ). As a result, his punishment
consisted of reduction to the grade of airman (E-2) (suspended)
and a reprimand.
On 22 Dec 10, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the Article
15 punishment and, on the same date, elected not to appeal the
punishment or submit statements on his behalf.
On 4 Jan 11, the Article 15 was reviewed and determined to be
legally sufficient.
On 18 Jan 11, the suspended portion of the applicants Article
15 punishment was vacated for dereliction in the performance of
his duties by failing to return to the local area at the end of
his leave and he was reduced to the grade of airman (E-2), with
a new date of rank of 22 Dec 10.
On 20 Jul 13, the applicant was furnished an honorable
discharge, with a narrative reason of Completion Of Required
Active Service, and he was credited with four years of total
active service.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of
primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial, indicating the applicant has not
shown a clear error or injustice. The applicant's argument
centers around the strength or validity of the evidence
supporting the NJP proceedings. However, the commander at the
time of the Article 15 had the best opportunity to evaluate the
evidence for this action. With that perspective, the commander
exercised the discretion that the applicant granted him when the
applicant accepted the Article 15 and found NJP appropriate.
The legal review process showed that the commander did not act
arbitrarily or capriciously in making this decision. The
applicant does not make a compelling argument that the Board
should overturn the commander's original NJP decision on the
basis of injustice.
A complete copy of the AFLOA/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 31 Oct 13 for review and comment within 30 days.
As of this date, no response has been received by this office
(Exhibit D).
________________________________________________________________
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
notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility
(OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion
the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.
While the applicants arguments are duly noted, in the absence
of any evidence the applicant was denied rights to which he was
entitled, that his nonjudicial punishment represented an abuse
of discretionary authority, or that he has been treated
differently than others similarly situated, we are not convinced
he is 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.
________________________________________________________________
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-2013-03470 in Executive Session on 8 Apr 14, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Jul 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 16 Sep 13.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 13.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-03698
The victim in the case has come forward with a statement indicating he did not assault her, but instead was trying to restrain her for her own safety due to her intoxicated state. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 23 Dec 09 for review and response within 30 days. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04128
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his AF Form 3070A, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceeding, multiple witness statements from trainees and coworkers, excerpts from the training records of several trainees who reported him, documentation of his success as a Military Training Instructor, and documentation related to the administration of his NJP and referral EPR. The reasons for the action were as follows: Violation of Article 93 of the UCMJ 1. The remaining...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00684
The AF Form 1168 did not list all the charges preferred against her and her Article 31 rights were violated which is reason to question the entire investigation. The form on which the applicant acknowledged and waived her Article 31 rights only indicates she was suspected of a false official statement; however, TSgt P. provided a memorandum for record stating she did orally tell the applicant of each allegation and there is additional evidence supporting the applicants guilt besides her...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04858
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit H. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served on active duty from 5 February 2002 to 4 October 2007. However, further evaluation by Mental Health personnel, subsequently ruled-out the applicants diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder and indicated his symptoms supported a diagnosis of Personality Disorder. For an accounting of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01294
On his last duty day, his commander issued him an Article 15 without any warning. On 17 Aug 98, the applicants commander issued him nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCJM) for being absent from his place of duty without authority in violation of UCMJ Article 86 from on about 2 Jul 98 through on or about 23 Jul 98. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02015
JAJM notes the applicant received punishment on 14 Jul 09; however, he did not appeal the commanders decision on that date. JAJM notes the error should be considered harmless for two reasons: 1) AFI 36-2404, Service Dates and Dates of Rank, paragraph 12.2 states the DOR in the grade to which an airman is reduced under Article 15, UCMJ, is the date of the endorsement (or letter) directing the reduction. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03205
On 28 May 14, the applicants commander notified him he was being considered for nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15. AFLOA/JAJMs position to deny the applicants request is supported; however, if the Board determines an error or injustice has occurred, and elects to restore the grade of master sergeant (E-7), the appropriate date of rank and effective date is 1 Feb 11. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01056
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01056 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Article 15 and Unfavorable Information File (UIF) be removed from his record and that his rank be restored. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends the Board not grant the relief sought regarding the Article 15 because there was no error or injustice with the process. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-01169-2
_________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 18 May 06, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s above stated requests (Exhibit J). Prior to processing of the reconsideration, the applicant submitted an undated DD Form 149 with an attachment, dated 8 Oct 06, requesting reconsideration of his case and providing additional evidence (Exhibit L). Therefore, the request for a hearing is again not favorably...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01968
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01968 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. 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 28 Jun 13, for review...