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.  His Article 15, nonjudicial punishment be removed from his 
record.

2.  His demotion from the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt) to 
Senior Airman (SrA) be set aside.

3.  His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4H (Serving 
suspended punishment pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ), be corrected on his DD 214, Certificate 
of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was unjustly discharged after over 10 years of service.  He 
was a good Airman and never broke any rules.  After being 
stationed at Beale AFB, he found nothing but problems for him 
and his family.  He had issues with his landlord which were not 
handled correctly and led to his supervisor finding him to be in 
financial hardship.  The actions taken against him were unfair 
and extreme and he would like a second chance at his military 
career.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
27 Mar 01.

On 2 Aug 11, the applicant’s commander offered him nonjudicial 
punishment for failure to go and disobeying a direct order.

On 4 Aug 11, after consulting with counsel, the applicant 
accepted the Article 15 punishment which consisted of reduction 
from the grade of SSgt to SrA, forfeiture of $500 pay, suspended 
through 3 Feb 12, and a reprimand.
On 9 Aug 11, the applicant was advised of his rights and 
privileges regarding his Article 15, elected not to appeal the 
decision and acknowledged the unfavorable information file (UIF) 
action.   

On an unspecified date in Aug 2011, the applicant applied for 
separation based on his High Year of Tenure (HYT) date of 
1 Dec 12, inability to test for promotion, and financial 
hardship.

On 2 Sep 11, the applicant’s separation request was approved for 
1 Nov 11, the date that he requested.

On 1 Nov 11, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, 
and was credited with 10 years, 7 months, and 5 days of active 
service.   

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.  A review of the available 
documentation indicates that the applicant’s rights were 
observed throughout the process.  On 2 Aug 11, the applicant’s 
commander offered him nonjudicial punishment proceedings for 
failure to report to duty, in violation of Article 89, UCMJ, and 
willfully disobeying an order, in violation of Article 91.  
After consulting with a lawyer, he accepted punishment and 
submitted a written presentation.  After considering the 
evidence and the applicant’s submission, the commander found the 
applicant committed the alleged misconduct.  The applicant 
waived his right to appeal.  There is no evidence of an error or 
injustice or an injustice pertaining to the Article 15 process.

A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change his RE code.  The applicant received an Article 15 and 
was given RE code 4H - “Serving suspended punishment pursuant to 
Article 15, UCMJ,” based on serving a suspended punishment that 
did not expire until 3 Feb 12.  The applicant had to separate by 
his HYT date of 1 Dec 12, and could not stay in the Air Force.  
However, he applied to separate on 1 Nov 11, using the fact that 
he could not stay in the AF past Dec 2012 as the justification.  
The applicant was still serving the Article 15 suspended 
punishment when he separated so the RE code 4H remained on his 
record.  Had he remained in the AF until the 4H expired, his RE 
code would have been changed to 4D - “Grade is SrA/E-4, 
completed at least 7 years Total Active Federal Military Service 
(TAFMS), but fewer than 16 years TAFMS and has not been selected 
for promotion to SSgt/E-5; or grade is SSgt/E-5, completed at 
least 14 years TAFMS, but fewer than 16 years TAFMS and has not 
been selected for promotion to TSgt/E-6,” unless the commander 
determined a higher priority (negatively) RE code applied.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
restore his rank, indicating there is no evidence of an error or 
an injustice.  Based on AFLOA/JAJM’s decision, that no legal 
errors were found in the nonjudicial process, denial is 
recommended.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 27 Oct 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 error or injustice.  We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility (OPR) 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.

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 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-2014-02425 in Executive Session on 25 Mar 15, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	

The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-02425 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Jun 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 17 Jul 14.
Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 30 Jul 14.
Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 18 Aug 14.
Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Oct 14.