RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02253
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) charges from his
Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) Investigative report be
removed and replaced with the nonjudicial punishment (Article
15).
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He received a squadron level Article 15 in February 2010. He
understood that an Article 15 would not affect him when applying
for jobs after his discharge. However, when he moved to New
York in 2012 and applied for a job the potential employer
requested the disposition of the UCMJ charges reflecting on the
FBI report. There are three UCMJ charges on the FBI report with
an arrest recorded; yet, there is no disposition listed.
He applied for a NYS Security License and again, they asked for
the status of prosecution and the certification of disposition
for the arrest. He has another interview and does not want to
jeopardize his future employment. Please remove the charges and
replace it with the Article 15 so that he can at least have the
opportunity to explain the incident.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Air Force who served
from 20 January 2009 through 30 June 2010.
On 1 March 2010, his commander imposed nonjudicial punishment on
him under Article 15 for violation of Articles 81, 107 and 108,
UCMJ. Specifically, the applicant conspired with another airman
to devise a false statement regarding the disappearance of his
Personal Protective Equipment, signed an official statement,
which was false, and through neglect lost his Personal
Protective Equipment. As a result, he received a suspended
reduction to the grade of airman basic.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. The application was not submitted
within three years but the merits may be considered by the
Board. Nonjudicial punishment is authorized by Article 15 of
the UCMJ and governed by the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) 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 must first be notified by their commanders of the nature
of the charged offenses, the supporting evidence and the
commanders intent to impose the punishment. The member may
consult defense counsel to determine whether to accept the
Article 15 or demand trial by court-martial. Accepting the
proceedings is simply a choice of forum, not an admission of
guilt. It also is not a criminal conviction.
AFLOA/JAJM does not find there is good cause to grant the
requested relief. The information in the applicants FBI report
does not mention any convictions, but merely lists the charges
given for the applicants arrest. There are multiple ways the
charges could have been discovered entirely separate from the
actual Article 15 process. Any credible information of charges
will be entered into the FBIs National Crime Information
Center. Furthermore, any investigation by the Office of Special
Investigations (OSI) will be discovered in a similar background
check. If the charges end in acquittal, it is OSIs
responsibility to inform and update the FBI. However, in this
case, there was neither acquittal nor conviction; there was an
Article 15 and so no update was sent to the FBI.
The complete AFLOA/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 10 November 2014, 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 not timely filed; however, it is
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice that would
warrant action by the Board. The applicant has requested the
Board change the UCMJ charges on his background (FBI) report,
however, this request falls outside the purview of this Board.
The applicant may wish to contact the agency of record for
assistance in resolving this matter. Therefore, there is no
basis for the Board to take action on the applicants request.
________________________________________________________________
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 BCMR Docket Number
BC-2014-02253 in Executive Session on 5 February 2015, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 May 14, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Record Excerpts.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 30 Jul 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Nov 14.
The Air Force Office of Special Investigation (OSI) Report of Investigation (ROI) reveals that an investigation was initiated based on information that the applicant allegedly raped a female Air Force member on 6 Apr 97, in violation of Article 120, UCMJ. Action Authority must provide AFOSI with a Report of Action Taken and evidence disposition instructions.” On 20 Oct 97, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment on him under Article 15, UCMJ. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03269
The applicant contends that during a FBI background check, he discovered they have him listed as dishonorably discharged. The applicant did receive an honorable discharge when his dishonorable discharge was suspended and his DD Form 214 properly annotates an honorable discharge. Should the applicant provide evidence to show that his Air Force records are in error, we would be willing to reconsider his request.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00944
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The evidence supporting the allegations against him is all circumstantial and the video surveillance tapes do not actually show him removing or replacing any stickers. The applicant is in error in stating that the absence of direct video evidence showing his alleged sticker-swapping offenses is proof that they were not committed at all. After considering the matters raised by the applicant, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-04506
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS However, while convening authority subsequently approved the findings of guilty with regard to the violations of Article 134, the finding of guilty for the charge and second specification of the Article 113 violation was not approved and approved only so much of the sentence as provided for the BCD, six months of confinement, forfeiture of $249.00 pay per month for six months and a reduction to the grade of airman basic. There is no...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01441
In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal statement, a statement by his Defense Counsel, which states in part, the applicant was treated unfairly in regard to the Article 15 action and that both Article 92 Dereliction of Duty offenses, alleging misuse of his government travel card, are additional examples of overreaching. Service members must first be notified by their commanders of the nature of the charged offense, the evidence supporting the offense, and of...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00032
On 16 July 1986, the Air Force Court of Military Review found the approved findings and sentence were correct in law and fact. 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 E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice with respect to the court-martial proceedings. We find no...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00235
However, the applicant has provided no documentation showing a pending larceny charge. The JAJM complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 21 May 2010, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00442
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to his discharge and court-martial, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. A review of his factual explanation to the judge of why he believed he was guilty of all charges and specifications likewise illustrates that his current contentions that he is not guilty of those...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04580
The Air Force Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and sentence on 10 February 1981. We have considered the applicant's overall quality of service, the general court-martial conviction which precipitated the discharge, and the seriousness of the offense to which convicted, and having found no error or injustice with regard to the actions that occurred while the applicant was a military member, we conclude that no basis exists to grant favorable action on his request. Exhibit B.
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...