RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02180

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP) under Article 15 imposed on 
27 Jun 13; all punishments be removed, and his security 
clearance and grade be restored.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Article 15 was unjust.  He received an Article 15 for using 
system knowledge to correctly troubleshoot an aircraft 
component.  He has documented evidence where the part in 
question was not inoperative, and was not a safety of flight 
issue. 

He has proof of how his commander knowingly allowed numerous 
Noncommissioned Officers (NCOs) get away with Air Force policy 
violations, which range from falsifying aircraft forms; an 
arrest in the local community for Driving under the Influence 
(DUI), and numerous Government Travel Card (GTC) violations, 
without receiving similar punishments as he did.

He has proof that he was singled out and had to file a Military 
Equal Opportunity (MEO) complaint; however, he was questioned 
about this by his senior NCO and his commander took no action. 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 13 Feb 02, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air 
Force.

On 2 Jul 13, the applicant's squadron commander offered the 
applicant nonjudicial punishment proceedings for willfully 
failing to complete a maintenance check on an aircraft that had 
a loose part in the air conditioning system, in violation of 
Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice.  After consulting 
with counsel, the applicant accepted the nonjudicial punishment 
proceedings and submitted written matters in his behalf.  After 
considering the evidence and the applicant's submission, the 
squadron commander found the applicant committed the alleged 
misconduct.  The squadron commander sentenced the applicant to 
be reduced to the grade of Senior Airman (E-4) with a new date 
of rank of 22 Jul 13.  On 29 Jul 13, the applicant appealed the 
decision on the Article 15 stating that he did not do an 
operations check on the air conditioning unit and never stated 
that he did.  On 7 Aug 13, the appellate authority denied the 
applicant's appeal. 

On 15 Apr 14, the applicant was honorably discharged with a 
reason for separation of miscellaneous/general reasons, and was 
credited with 12 years, 2 months, and 3 days of active service.   


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  

JAJM notes that NJP is authorized by Article 15, Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ) (10 U.S.C. § 815), and governed by the 
Manual for Courts-Martial (Part V) and AFI 51-202, Nonjudicial 
Punishment.  This procedure permits commanders to dispose of 
certain offenses without trial by court-martial unless the 
service member objects.  Service members first must be notified 
by their commanders of the nature of the charged offenses, the 
evidence supporting the offenses, and the commander's intent to 
impose the punishment.  The member may consult with a defense 
counsel to determine whether to accept the NJP or demand trial 
by court-martial.  Accepting the proceedings is simply a choice 
of forum; it is not an admission of guilt.  NJP is also not, 
when imposed, a criminal conviction. 

A member accepting Article 15 proceedings may submit written 
matters to, and have a hearing with, the commander imposing the 
punishment.  The member may have a spokesperson at the hearing, 
may request that witnesses appear and testify, and may present 
evidence.  The commander must consider any information offered 
by the member and must be convinced by reliable evidence that 
the member committed the offenses before imposing punishment. 
Members who wish to contest their commander's determination or 
the severity of the punishment imposed may appeal to the next 
higher commander.  The appeal authority may deny the appeal 
altogether if the appeal authority agrees with the action taken 
or may remove or modify the Article 15 if he or she disagrees in 
whole or in part with the action.  That said, a commander 
considering a case for disposition under Article 15 exercises 
largely unfettered discretion in evaluating the case, both as to 
whether punishment is warranted and, if so, the nature and 
extent of punishment.  The exercise of that discretion should 
generally not be reversed or otherwise changed on appeal or by 
the Board absent good cause.

Ultimately, the squadron commander considered the evidence and 
decided the applicant should have performed the operational 
check, whether he claimed he did or didn't.  The appellate 
authority agreed, and they did not find good cause to disagree. 

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
restore his rank to SSgt.  DPSOE notes that JAJM has reviewed 
the case and determined there were no legal errors requiring 
corrective action regarding the nonjudicial process and 
recommended the applicant's request to remove the Article 15 be 
denied.  DPSOE uses JAJM’s determination as the basis for their 
recommendation.

The complete DPOSE evaluation is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reiterates his original contentions that he did 
not commit the alleged offense and that he has not been treated 
fairly as others who have committed similar and more egregious 
offenses.  

He explains the circumstances which led to his Article 
15 punishment and the numerous violations of other airmen that 
went unpunished.  

He has questioned the alleged offense, since the beginning, and 
has not been provided an answer as to the specific policy he 
violated.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit F.


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 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 the Air Force Legal Operations Agency and adopt their 
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-2014-02180 in Executive Session on 7 May 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 May 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 17 Jul 14.  
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 6 Aug 14.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Sep 14.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Oct 14, w/atch.