AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS  

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-02568 
 
COUNSEL: NONE  
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
The  nonjudicial  punishment  (Article  15)  imposed  on  him  be  set 
aside and removed from his records. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He could never understand why he could not get a government job 
after  retiring  from  the  Air  Force  after  23  years  of  service.  
One employer suggested that he check his military files.   
 
His father suffered a long illness and died of cancer.  He had a 
lot  on  his  mind  after  leaving  his  elderly  mother  behind  after 
the  death  of  his  father.    He,  along  with  some  of  the  airmen, 
were recovering an aircraft that had a bad tire.  They did not 
see it and the tire was not changed.  He was blamed because he 
was the ranking airman on the team. 
 
He  feels  he  has  been  punished  long  enough.    He  is  older  and 
wiser and prays this can and will be worked out. 
 
In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal 
statement. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachment,  is  at 
Exhibit A.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The applicant is a former member of the Air Force who retired on 
31 October 1991. 
 
On  14  March  1990,  his  commander  imposed  nonjudicial  punishment 
on  him  under  Article  15  for  violation  of  Article  92,  of  the 
Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ).    Specifically,  the 
applicant  was  derelict  in  his  duties  by  negligently  failing  to 
take  corrective  action  after  observing  personnel  with  whom  he 
was working incorrectly inspect, identify, change and document a 
damaged tire on an aircraft.  He received forfeiture of $935.00 

 
 
pay  per  month  for  two  months  and  30  days  correctional  custody.  
After  appealing  the  punishment,  the  appellate  authority 
mitigated the 30 days correctional custody to 30 days extra duty 
and suspended forfeitures in excess of $200.00 per month for two 
months for 6 months, unless sooner vacated.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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 also is 
not a criminal conviction. 
 
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 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  applicant 
does  not  allege  error  in  how  the  Article  15  was  processed.    A 
review  of  the  applicant’s  record  indicates  the  applicant’s 
rights  were  observed  throughout  the  Article  15  process.    The 
commander  had  the  best  opportunity  to  evaluate  the  evidence  of 
the case.  He found nonjudicial punishment was appropriate. 
 
Moreover,  the  commander’s  decision  was  scrutinized  by  the 
applicant’s  exercise  of  his  appeal  in  which  the  appellate 
authority  granted  relief  by  mitigating  and  suspending  the 
imposed punishment. The legal review shows the commander did not 
act arbitrarily or capriciously in making his decision.   
 
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 
his authority and discretion.   
 
The applicant has not shown a clear error or injustice.   
 
The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 

2 

 
 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
A  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the 
applicant  on  12  September  2012,  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  not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 
 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.    We  took  note 
of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility  and  adopt  its  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our 
determination  that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of 
error  or  injustice.    Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to 
the contrary, we find no basis 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 BCMR Docket Number 
BC-2012-02568 in Executive Session on 23 January 2013, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 

, Panel Chair 
, Member 
, Member 

 

 

 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-02568 was considered: 

 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Jun 12, w/atch. 
Exhibit B. Letter, Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 19 Jul 12. 
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Jan 12. 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
Panel Chair 

4