RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01740
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP) under Article 15 imposed on
28 Apr 14 be set aside.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her Article 15 should be set aside because her treatment during
the case was unfair and unjust and maintains her innocence
regarding the incident.
Her case involved her and her roommate. She pled not guilty to
the charges and appealed the Article 15; however, her appeal was
denied. Then, she was notified of administrative discharge
action, while her roommate received an honorable discharge due to
mental health reasons.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 14 Mar 14, the applicant was offered nonjudicial punishment
under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). She
was charged with, between on or about 7 Jan and 7 Feb 14, for
wrongful use of oxycodone in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. The
applicant was afforded the opportunity to consult with defense
counsel, accepted the Article 15 and waived her right to demand
trial by court-martial. She elected to present written matters
and requested a personal appearance before the commander. On 3
Apr 14, the commander decided that the applicant had committed the
offense alleged. The commander imposed punishment consisting of a
forfeiture of $765.00 pay per month for two months. On 8 Apr 14,
the applicant appealed the commander's decision and sought to have
the Article 15 set aside. However, her appeal was denied. On
15 Apr 14, the Article 15 action was reviewed and determined to be
legally sufficient.
On 30 May 14, the applicant was discharged with service
characterized as general, under honorable conditions, in the grade
of airman first class (A1C/E-3). She was credited with 7 months
and 23 days of active service.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an
error or an injustice.
JAJM notes, the applicant claimed in her appeal letter that she
ingested a pill from her roommate, which she believed to be a
common painkiller such as Ibuprofen, and that she did not
knowingly take a Percocet pill. After taking a random drug
urinalysis test in Feb 14, the Air Force Drug Testing Laboratory
reported in Mar 14, the applicant tested positive for oxycodone,
the active ingredient in Percocet. After carefully reviewing the
record and the package submitted by the applicant, JAJM cannot
find good cause to reverse or otherwise change the commander's
decision, even after considering the information provided by the
applicant that she did not knowingly take the Percocet pill. In
this case, the applicant's commander was in the best position to
review the evidence presented at the time of the Article 15, and
to determine the veracity of such evidence. The applicant had
consulted counsel and accepted the Article 15. Furthermore, the
applicant appealed the Article 15, and the Appellate Authority,
after considering all of the evidence upheld the Article 15.
JAJM did not find any facts indicating any irregularities with the
Article 15 process. If the applicant disagreed with the
misconduct allegations she could have turned down the
Article 15 and gone to trial, but she chose not to do so at the
time.
The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 27 Jun 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).
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 injustice regarding the
applicants request that her Article 15 be set aside. We took
notice of the applicants 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 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.
4. Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has
been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice to
warrant corrective action. In this respect, while we believe the
Article 15 action taken against the applicant was in accordance
with the applicable governing instructions; nonetheless, after a
thorough review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we
find the applicants character of service and reason for
separation, to be overly harsh. The available evidence indicates
this was a one-time incident that ultimately resulted in her
separation, and while we do not condone the applicants action, in
our view, the applicant more than likely would not have repeated
the incidents which led to her discharge. Therefore, in order to
correct the injustice of improperly characterizing the applicant,
we believe her character of service should be upgraded to
honorable and her narrative reason for separation should be
changed to Secretarial Authority. Accordingly, we recommend the
applicants record be corrected to the extent indicated below.
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 30 May 14,
she was honorably discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208,
paragraph 1.2., (Secretarial Authority) with a separation code of
KFF.
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2014-01740 in Executive Session on 11 Mar 15 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The
following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2014-01740 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Apr 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 11 Jun 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jun 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01719
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2013-01719 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Article 15 nonjudicial punishment received in November 2012 be set-aside. He and his legal counsel followed the correct actions for each level of appeal; however, his commander refused to act upon the evidence presented. The Board notes the Air Force office of primary responsibility indicates the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 03981
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C, D, F, H, I, J and K. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. Further, based on the BOI and a self-obtained polygraph examination, the applicant requested the NJP be set-aside; however, his request was denied. While we note the applicant requests further legal review,...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00082
He received a BCD after trying to get the Air Force to help him with an addiction. However, he was not provided the proper treatment for an opiate addiction and shortly after asking for and not receiving the proper help began writing prescriptions for Oxycodone. The applicant was able to relate in his unsworn statement his contention that he self-referred for help with his addiction and that the Air Force did not give him proper treatment.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01594
On 4 Apr 89, the applicant was convicted in a General Court- Martial of two violations of Article 112a, wrongfully use of cocaine and distribution of cocaine. 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. We find no evidence which...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04721
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04721 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded. We have considered the applicant's overall quality of service, the special court-martial conviction which precipitated the discharge, and the seriousness of the offense to which convicted, and having...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03139
On 19 May 08, the applicants commander denied her appeal and on 21 May 08, the appellate authority denied the appeal. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request to remove the contested EPRs from her military record, indicating there is a lack of corroborating evidence provided by the applicant. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit...
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 | 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03539
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: A Discharge Review Board (DRB), made up of officers, reviewed all the evidence and testimony on her case and determined she did not commit the offenses which were the basis for the LOR and NJP. On 28 Jun 13, an administrative Discharge Review Board (DRB) found the applicant did not fail to go as her commander had determined in the NJP action. While the Board acknowledges the Discharge Review Board...