Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03205
Original file (BC 2014 03205.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03205

      COUNSEL:  NONE

							HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Article 15 be set aside and his rank (and all allowances) be 
restored to the grade of master sergeant (E-7).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The investigation into an alleged adultery charge was incomplete 
and there is no evidence of an adulterous affair.  The 
interviewing officer did not speak to the person with whom he was 
accused of having an affair with, and his wife was not 
interviewed.  Further, the commander never obtained witness 
statements against him.  He provides a signed statement from his 
wife and the person he allegedly had the adulterous affair with; 
both statements corroborate his contention no affair occurred.  He 
also provides an unsigned memorandum from an Area Defense Counsel 
(ADC) member.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 6 Dec 93, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

On 28 May 14, the applicant’s commander notified him he was being 
considered for nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15.

On 5 Jun 14, the applicant acknowledged receipt of punishment 
under Article 15 for adultery, lying about the relationship on two 
occasions, and a violation of a no contact order.  The punishment 
consisted of reduction in grade to technical sergeant (E-6) and a 
reprimand.

On 10 Jun 14, the applicant appealed his punishment.  His appeal 
was denied by both his squadron and group commander

On 30 Oct 14, the applicant retired from active duty as a 
technical sergeant (E-6), effective 1 Nov 14, and was credited 
with 20 years, 10 months, and 25 days of active service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C 
and D.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or an injustice.  The applicant does not make a compelling 
argument the Board should overturn the commander’s original NJP 
decision on the basis of injustice or insufficient evidence.  It 
is his burden to provide the board with all evidence to support 
his claims.  In this case, he failed to submit his NJP or the 
evidence presented to him.  He only submits two statements from 
witnesses that it appears he procured; it is unclear whether these 
were ever presented to the commander for consideration.  The base 
legal office provided all of the evidence used against him and 
there is clearly enough evidence to support the commander’s 
finding.  In addition, the commander’s ultimate decision on the 
NJP action was reviewed on multiple levels for legal sufficiency 
and it was determined that the commander’s decision was rooted in 
firm evidence of the case and the punishment decisions was well 
within the limits of the commander’s authority and discretion.

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

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or an injustice.  The applicant received an Article 15 for 
adultery, lying about the relationship on two occasions, and a 
violation of a no contact order.  His punishment consisted of a 
reduction in grade to technical sergeant (E-6) and a reprimand.  
He appealed the punishment but his appeal was denied by both his 
squadron and group commander.  AFLOA/JAJM’s position to deny the 
applicant’s request is supported; however, if the Board determines 
an error or injustice has occurred, and elects to restore the 
grade of master sergeant (E-7), the appropriate date of rank and 
effective date is 1 Feb 11.

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 9 Jan 15 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, to include his 
witness statements, 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.


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-2014-03205 in Executive Session on 21 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 31 Jul 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 6 Nov 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 6 Dec 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jan 15.

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05820

    Original file (BC 2012 05820.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement, and, copies of his Article 15; response to the Article 15; Area Defense Counsel’s response to the Article 15; request for suspension of nonjudical punishment; witness statements; referral EPR; career EPRs; awards, decorations, and recognitions; and character references. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSIM agrees with AFLOA/JAJM’s recommendation to deny the relief sought to set aside the nonjudicial...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04036

    Original file (BC-2011-04036.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 Jul 11, while again a technical sergeant, the applicant’s commander offered him NJP under Article 15 of the UCMJ for willfully failing to properly handle classified information by storing a classified briefing marked “NATO SECRET REL ISAF” on his personal computer. We note that the commander exercised the discretion that the applicant granted him when he accepted the Article 15 and found nonjudicial punishment appropriate in his case, the punishment decision was well within the limits...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03139

    Original file (BC-2012-03139.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 19 May 08, the applicant’s 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 applicant’s 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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-02497

    Original file (BC-2011-02497.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His grade of master sergeant (E-7) be restored with an effective date of 1 June 2004. The applicant received non-judicial punishment on 13 September 2010 for two incidents of failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice;...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01412

    Original file (BC 2014 01412.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01412 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His non-judicial punishment (NJP), received on 16 Sep 13, under Article 15 be removed from his military record. The applicant’s discharge case went to the SAFPC for review and decision as to whether or not to administratively discharge the applicant or allow him to be permanently retired.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02566

    Original file (BC-2011-02566.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02566 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The 14th Air Force Commander responded that after a thorough review of his complaint, she found his commander committed no “wrongs” under Article 138; therefore, his request for redress was denied. The complete AFLOA/JAJM...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02015

    Original file (BC-2011-02015.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    JAJM notes the applicant received punishment on 14 Jul 09; however, he did not appeal the commander’s decision on that date. JAJM notes the error should be considered harmless for two reasons: 1) AFI 36-2404, Service Dates and Dates of Rank, paragraph 12.2 states the DOR in the grade to which an airman is reduced under Article 15, UCMJ, is the date of the endorsement (or letter) directing the reduction. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05137

    Original file (BC 2013 05137.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05137 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His selection for promotion to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) during cycle 13E7 be reinstated. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant provides two new documents in support of his arguments: a memo for record from the first...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03886

    Original file (BC-2007-03886.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    At the time of the incident which resulted in his NJP, he was serving in the grade of TSgt with the 78th Security Forces Squadron, Robins AFB, GA. On 12 May 2005, the applicant’s commander offered him NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, for disorderly conduct and assault. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation applicant submitted in support of his appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01514

    Original file (BC-2010-01514.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE defers to the recommendation of AFLOA/JAJM regarding the Article 15 and restoration of the applicant’s former rank of master sergeant. A complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit...