RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00418
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His reduction in grade to senior airman with a new date of rank
to 8 December 2011 be set aside.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He did not disobey a lawful order on or about 6 February 2012.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in
the grade of senior airman.
On 29 November 2011, the applicant received non-judicial
punishment under Article 15 for being derelict in the
performance of his duties, in violation of Article 92, of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and disorderly conduct,
in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.
The applicant was sentenced to reduction in grade from staff
sergeant to senior airman (suspended through 7 June 2012) and to
perform 15 days extra duties.
On 26 April 2012, the commander notified the applicant that the
commander was considering whether to vacate some or all of the
suspended punishment for the applicants failure to obey a
lawful order in violation of Article 92, UCMJ.
After consulting with counsel the applicant submitted a written
presentation on his behalf. The commander found the applicant
committed the misconduct and remitted the reduction to the grade
of senior airman with a new date of rank of 8 December 2011.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states the applicant has
submitted the transcript of a later-convened administrative
discharge board which found the applicant did not disobey a
lawful order and recommended the applicant be retained. The
applicant states that he did not disobey a lawful order. In
support of the applicants contention, he points to the
discharge boards finding.
With respect to the applicants contention, it is not unusual
for different people to look at the same or similar evidence and
come to different decisions. However, in this case, the
findings associated with the Article 15 and subsequent vacation
action was within the discretion and authority of the commander.
The commanders finding and decision with respect to the
vacation action should not necessarily be reversed by the Board
simply because a discharge board disagreed with the commander
and made a different finding. Therefore, we do not find there
is good cause to grant the relief requested.
The JAJM complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 15 September 2014, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within
30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, no response has been
received by this office.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by
existing law or regulations.
2. The application is 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 opinion and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the
existence 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 issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably
considered.
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of an 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-2014-00418 in Executive Session on 8 January 2015,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 15 January 2014, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 1 April 2014.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 September 2014.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02425
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02425 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02566
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02566 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The 14th Air Force Commander responded that after a thorough review of his complaint, she found his commander committed no wrongs under Article 138; therefore, his request for redress was denied. The complete AFLOA/JAJM...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02000
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02000 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. He did not submit written matters to the commander but requested a personal appearance before the commander. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2011-05095
The commanders at the time of these nonjudicial punishment actions had the best opportunity to evaluate the evidence in these cases. The legal review processes showed that the commanders did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in making these decisions. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2011-04636
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04636 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Article 15 received on 4 February 2011, be set aside and his rank to staff sergeant (E-5) be restored. At the time the Article 15 was offered, the applicant had an opportunity to address his commander and present similar reference letters. DPSOE...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01181
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01181 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The applicant does not provide any evidence in support of his appeal. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air...
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-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 | CY2012 | BC-2011-05044
The Article 15 she received on 5 April 2007 be removed from her records. The commander however, did find the violation of Article 92 as substantiated. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends a partial grant since the issuing commander found sufficient evidence did not exist to substantiate the three alleged violations of Article 134, UCMJ.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02717
On 18 July 1973, the applicant received non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failure to go to his place of duty, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluation were forwarded to the applicant on 27 February 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). We took notice of the applicants complete...