RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00149
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her second Article 15 for unprofessional relationship for solicitation be removed from her records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
1. She received no prior counseling on the subject but instead was automatically given an Article 15.
2. Other military members were involved and received no punishment until she provided additional information.
3. The commanders decision to give her an Article 15 was based on her having a previous Article 15.
4. Information provided by another member involved contradicts with the time table of events.
5. Her commander was never solicited by her to participate in the pyramid scheme but she was from others; however, she was the only one who received an Article 15.
In support of her requests, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of several memorandums, AF IMT 1163, Statement of Suspects/Witnesses/Complaints and various other documents associated with her application.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is an active duty officer serving in the grade of first lieutenant (O-2) at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, as a Security Forces officer.
In December 2011, she received an Article 15 for fraternization with an enlisted member who was married and assigned to her unit.
On 19 June 2012, her commander initiated another Article 15 for wrongful violation of a lawful general regulation, in violation of Article 92, in which she solicited enlisted members to engage in a pyramid scheme for her benefit.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states that the applicant has not shown a clear error or injustice. She was afforded the opportunity to consult with defense counsel, accepted the Article 15 and waived her right to demand trial by court-martial. She was provided due process and her appeal of the punishment was reviewed by the Air Force Material Command Commander and the Article 15 was determined to be legally sufficient. The applicant does not make a compelling argument that the Board should overturn the commanders original, nonjudicial punishment decision on the basis of injustice. The commanders ultimate decision on the Article 15 action is firmly based on the evidence of the case and the punishment decision was well within the limits of the commanders authority and discretion. The applicant has not shown a clear error or injustice and recommends no relief be granted.
The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANTS REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 24 February 2013 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a 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 injustice that would warrant set aside of her Article 15. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation provided in support of her appeal, we do not believe she has suffered an injustice. Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the nonjudicial punishment was improper. In cases of this nature, we are not inclined to disturb the judgments of commanding officers absent a strong showing of abuse of discretionary authority. It is our opinion that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of proof of such. The evidence indicates that, during the processing of this Article 15 action, she was offered every right to which she was entitled. She was afforded the opportunity to consult with defense counsel, waived her right to demand trial by court-martial, and submitted written matters for review by the imposing commander. After considering the matters raised by the applicant, the commander determined that she had committed the alleged offense and imposed punishment on the applicant. She has not provided any evidence showing that the imposing commander abused his discretionary authority, that her substantial rights were violated during the processing of the Article 15 punishment, or that the punishment exceeded the maximum authorized by the UCMJ. Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider 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-2013-00149 in Executive Session on 17 September 2013 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Jan 2013, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicants Military Service Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 11 Feb 2013.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 2013.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01280
There is no evidence whether this is the case here, but in such a case, the applicants commander could also have charged the applicant with dereliction of duty or violation of a lawful order, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. After considering the matters raised by the applicant, the commander determined that the applicant had committed the offense alleged and imposed punishment on the applicant. The applicant has not provided any evidence showing that the imposing commander or the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-00707
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00707 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Article 15, nonjudicial punishment (NJP), and all actions associated with the punishment be removed; she be reinstated to active duty with her original date of rank; and her reentry (RE) code be changed to one that would allow her to return to...
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 | CY2008 | BC-2007-03290
The applicant has provided no evidence of a clear error or injustice related to the nonjudicial punishment action. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation applicant submitted in support of her appeal, we do not believe she has suffered from an injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02798
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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-00737
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00737 INDEX CODE: 131.00, 126.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: DAVID PRICE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 11 SEP 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The nonjudicial punishment imposed on 27 April 2005, be set aside and his rank be restored to...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03886
At the time of the incident which resulted in his NJP, he was serving in the grade of TSgt with the 78th Security Forces Squadron, Robins AFB, GA. On 12 May 2005, the applicant’s commander offered him NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, for disorderly conduct and assault. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation applicant submitted in support of his appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00538
The commander at the time of this nonjudicial punishment action had the best opportunity to evaluate all the evidence in this case. The punishment was severe for the offense of failure to maintain accountability of the fund cites that amounted to $2,086.47. The punishment she received would have been warranted had the unaccounted amount resulting from her failing to account for the fund cites amounted to $32,636.07.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00489
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00489 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His nonjudicial punishment received under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) be removed from his record. Personnel from the Air Force Office of Special Investigation informed authorities at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base about the...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02759
She requests the Board review the evidence presented to determine the justice of her Article 15 punishment. The evidence of record indicates the applicant's commander determined that she had committed the alleged offense of driving under the influence of alcohol, resulting in her nonjudicial punishment under Article 15. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...