RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00417
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The nonjudicial punishment (NJP) action he received on 30 Sep
10, under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) be
set aside and removed from his record.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His Article 15 should be set aside because it fails to uphold
Air Force core values. Specifically, integrity and service
before self as his commander decided on a punishment before all
the evidence was presented.
The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
_
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant served on active duty from 20 Jul 04 until 12 Jul
11.
On 21 Sep 10, the applicant, then a senior airman, was offered
NJP under Article 15, for dereliction of duty for sleeping on
duty, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. After consulting with
counsel, the applicant accepted the Article 15 proceedings and
waived his right to demand trial by court-martial. He presented
written matters and did not request a personal appearance before
the commander. On 30 Sep 10, the applicants commander decided
the applicant had committed the charged offense and imposed
punishment consisting of a reduction to the grade of airman
first class, 10 extra days of duty which was suspended, and a
reprimand. The applicant appealed the commanders decision. On
6 and 8 Oct 10, the applicants appeal was denied by his
squadron commander and group commander respectively. The
Article 15 action was reviewed and determined to be legally
sufficient.
The applicant received two previous Article 15s, one in Mar 10,
for striking someone with his fist, and one in Sep 06, for
operating a vehicle with an open container and for speeding in
base housing.
________________________________________________________________
_
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states that the applicant
has not demonstrated a clear error or injustice. The applicant
does not allege an error in the processing of his Article 15.
The applicant alleges that he was punished harsher than others
who committed the same offense and his commander decided on a
punishment before all the evidence was presented. However, the
applicant does not make a compelling argument that the Board
should overturn the commanders nonjudicial punishment decision.
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. In addition, the commander reviewed all
submissions by the applicant before making his final decision on
the punishment.
The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 24 Feb 13, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant 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 error or injustice. We took notice
of the applicant's 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 and adopt its
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has
not been 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 sought in this application.
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 issue involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably
considered.
________________________________________________________________
_
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 Docket Number
BC-2013-00417 in Executive Session on 26 Sep 13, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Jan 13.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 19 Feb 13.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 13.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04779
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 | CY2013 | BC-2012-03474
The applicants complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit H. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of her request to upgrade her discharge. The applicant was, however, punished not by her immediate supervisor based on his personal evaluation of her, but by her squadron commander for the repeated failure to report for duty on time. With respect to her request that her rank be restored to SrA, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05825
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05825 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Article 15 imposed on 4 Mar 13 be removed from his records. However, this error does not warrant setting aside the entire NJP as the applicant requests. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04917
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 applicants commander and first sergeant submitted letters of support for the applicant requesting the Board restore the applicants rank of E-3 with an effective date of rank of 16 May 13. However, if the Board votes to grant this request, as...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-03937
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-03937 INDEX CODE: 126.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The nonjudicial punishment (NJP) rendered on 8 Feb 07 be set aside. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01855
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 and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Paperwork aside, the applicant was promoted to senior airman, effective 30 May 11. The punishment of a reduction in grade in...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02173
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM addressed the applicant’s request in regards to the 25 Nov 05 Article 15 being set aside and that he be reinstated to the rank of staff sergeant with his original date of rank, 31 Jan 01; stating, in part, that the applicant’s contentions provide no legal basis for relief and has not presented evidence of a meaningful error or clear injustice in the Article 15 process, and recommended the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02987
His Article 15 received on 22 Apr 13 be set aside. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE indicates no equity in the decision regarding the removal of the applicants Article 15, indicating AFLOA/JAJM has reviewed the case and found the Article 15 punishment legally sufficient, and recommended denial of the applicants request to have it set aside. Although, the commander was to only examine all the statements and other evidence upon which he would rely...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01954
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 | CY2010 | BC-2010-01092
The applicant was considered and tentatively selected for promotion to staff sergeant during the 09E5 promotion cycle and received the promotion sequence number 15155.0, which incremented on 1 Aug 10. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial and states that the applicant has not provided evidence of a clear error or injustice. They state that should the Board remove the applicants Article 15, the referral...