RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01276
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Date of Rank (DOR) to the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt/E-5)
be changed to its original DOR of 11 Jul 08.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was told that she received an Article 15 punishment, in
Mar 10; with a demotion to the grade of Senior Airman (SrA/E-4).
However, as of Jan 14, there was no record of the Article
15 action.
She contacted the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) and was told
that there was no record of an Article 15 or a demotion order in
her file.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 8 Dec 00, the applicant initially enlisted in the Louisiana Air
National Guard (LAANG) for a period of six years.
On 16 Nov 06, the applicant extended her initial enlistment for a
period of three years in the grade of Senior Airman (SrA/E-4).
According to Special Order (SO) AH-56, dated 11 Jul 08, the
applicant was promoted to the grade of SSgt, with an effective
date and DOR of 11 Jul 08.
On 7 Dec 09, the applicant reenlisted for a period of three years
in the grade of SSgt.
According to AF Form 1288, Application for Ready Reserve
Assignment, On 15 Feb 11, the applicant was selected for transfer
to the District of Columbia ANG (DCANG), 113th Wing, in the grade
of SrA.
On 1 Apr 11, the applicant reenlisted in the District of Columbia
ANG (DCANG) for a period of four years in the grade of SrA.
On 15 Jul 12, the applicant was promoted to the grade of SSgt with
an effective date and DOR of 15 Jul 12.
On 23 Aug 12, the applicant received a referral report, AF Form
910, Enlisted Performance Report, for the period 1 Apr 11 through
31 Mar 12. In Section III, Performance Assessment, Block 3,
Fitness, the applicant was marked as Does Not Meet Standards.
Her overall rating was a 5 and her grade at the time of the
report was listed as SrA.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLOA/JAJM did not provide a recommendation; however, they noted
the applicants request should be forwarded to the Air Force
Personnel Center to have her DOR reviewed.
JAJM notes that in the Airman Records Management System (ARMS),
there is no administrative demotion action or Non-judicial
Punishment (NJP) action. There is also no record of any NJP
action in the Automated Military Justice Analysis and Management
System (AMJAMS).
The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.
NGB/A1PP recommends denial.
A1PP notes that, on 15 Feb 11, the applicant acknowledged via
AF IMT 1288 that she had misused a Government Travel Card (GTC) or
had been seriously delinquent. She also acknowledged that she had
an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) established (or similar
derogatory information file which may include an Article 15,
Captains Mast, or Court Martial action) within the last
two years. Fellow unit members of the applicant verified these
actions via email.
Further, A1PP notes that it is not incumbent upon the military to
provide members with documentation of administrative actions years
after the occurrence. The fact that she was shown as a SrA in the
system is proof that a demotion occurred and her demotion reset
her eligibility for promotion to SSgt.
The complete A1PP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 4 May 15 for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit E). 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 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, while we note the comments from The
Air Force Legal Operations Agency that they do not have a record
of the NJP, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the
National Guard Bureau office of primary responsibility and adopt
its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has
not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend
granting the requested 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-2014-01276 in Executive Session on 04 Jun 15 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Mar 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 7 Jan 15.
Exhibit D. Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 9 Feb 15.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 May 15.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02847
In a letter dated 2 June 2015, SAF/MRBR provided the applicant an opportunity to request that her case be administratively closed until such time as her case is resolved through the appropriate IG authority and requested she respond within 30 days (Exhibit G). After considering the applicants appeal, several character statements and the Staff Judge Advocates legal review, the demotion authority approved the demotion action on 24 February 2014. As such, an applicant must first exhaust all...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01371
At the time the applicant was advised of this action, AF Form 366, Record of Proceedings of Vacation of Suspended Nonjudicial Punishment, was completed in the Section 9 indicating the punishment the applicant would receive. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice that would warrant set-aside of the vacation of her suspended reduction. __________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05529
A suspended reduction to the rank of SSgt would have more appropriate for a first time offense. The reduction to the rank of Senior Airman (SrA, E-4) as a result of Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP), UCMJ was mitigated to a fine of $1,000. For example, if a member receives Article 15 punishment on 1 June, consisting of a reduction in grade, and the commander subsequently (on 1 July) mitigates the reduction to forfeiture, both the effective date and DOR for the restored grade is 1 July.
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 | CY2012 | BC 2012 01472
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit H. AFLOA/JAJM addresses the applicants nonjudicial punishment (Article 15), and determines the applicants commander did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in making the decision to punish the applicant under Article 15. In addition, while the Board notes the applicant was denied the opportunity to test for promotion during the 10E5 promotion cycle, the fact she did not test also constitutes a harmless error because she was not...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 00-03277 INDEX CODE 126.02 131.09 129.04 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to the grade of E5/staff sergeant (SSgt) and promoted to E6/technical sergeant (TSgt) by setting aside the punishment imposed on him by Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), dated 31 Oct 95,...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03325
The applicant also says her defense counsel said she was too busy to provide legal advice to the applicant or to research her concerns. The applicant is requesting her nonjudicial punishment (Article 15), dated 23 Feb 11, be removed from her record. Furthermore, the remaining charge the discharge board determined she was guilty of was an action she undertook only after first seeking advice from a field grade officer and a security forces NCOIC, and then following the advice she received.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01841
For these acts, the applicant was punished by a reduction in grade to staff sergeant, with a date of rank of 7 Mar 07, and a reprimand. The applicant was rendered a referral EPR for the period 15 Aug 06 through 15 Mar 06 (sic), which included the following statements: During this period member indecently assaulted a female Airman for which he received an Article 15/demotion, and Vast potentialdemonstrated poor judgment unbecoming of an Air Force NCOconsider for promotion. On 18 Mar...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00091
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00091 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. She remained in South Dakota for 12 days, at which time her unit ordered her to return. The complete HQ AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | bc-2004-02142
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was initially enlisted on 8 May 2003 in the higher grade of A1C as she enlisted in a critical Air Force Specialty (AFS). She was enlisted in the next lower grade and later found another airman who had enlisted under the same circumstances but at the higher grade. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the...