RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-03254
	
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP) under Article 15 imposed on 
3 Nov 09, be removed from his Officer Selection Record (OSR).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Article 15 and subsequent consequences like being subject to 
a RIF relieving him from active duty, has been punishment 
enough.  

He discusses his record of performance and achievements since 
receiving the Article 15 as well as his dedication to the 
service of the United States.

He was never advised he could have received board counseling 
after his first non-selection for promotion.  Had he been 
advised, he would have been able to request that his Article 
15 be removed from his OSR for the second promotion board.

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, letters of support and character reference letters.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the applicant’s military personnel records, on 
28 May 03, he enlisted in the Regular Air Force and is currently 
serving in the Air National Guard (ANG) in the grade of Captain 
(Capt, O-3).

On 3 Nov 09, the applicant received an Article 15 for 
fraternization with an enlisted person, in violation of Article 
134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  As a 
result, his punishment consisted of forfeiture of $2,474 pay per 
month for 2 months and a reprimand. 

On 6 Nov 09, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the Article 
15 punishment and, on 10 Nov 09, elected not to appeal the 
punishment or submit matters on his OSR.

On 12 Nov 09, his commander elected to file the Article 15 in 
his OSR.

On 13 Nov 09, the Article 15 was reviewed and determined to be 
legally sufficient.

On 1 Mar 12, the applicant was released from active duty under 
the Reduction in Force (RIF) and was credited with 8 years, 
9 months and 4 days of total active service.

On 2 Mar 12, the applicant was appointed by the Secretary of 
Defense (SECDEF) to the Air Force Reserves (AFRES) in the grade 
of captain.

On 10 Oct 12, the applicant was honorably discharged from the 
Rhode Island ANG and appointed to the New York ANG, effective 
11 Oct 12.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial, indicating the applicant has not 
shown a clear error or injustice.  The applicant's argument 
centers on his record of performance and achievements since 
receiving the Article 15 as well as his dedication to the 
service of the United States. He argues that the Article 15 and 
subsequent consequences like being subject to a RIF relieving 
him from active duty, has been punishment enough.  However, the 
applicant had the ability to consult counsel on his Article 
15 and could have continued to seek counsel for collateral 
matters stemming from his Article 15.  The best way to remove 
the Article 15 from the OSR would have been to appeal to the 
commander or his equivalent before he met his promotion board.  
While the applicant’s personal and professional achievements are 
laudable and should be considered by the Board, there was no 
legal error or injustice with the Article 15 process or the 
placement in his OSR which would warrant recommending removal of 
the Article 15 from his OSR.    

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

ARPC/PBP does not make a recommendation but indicates if the 
Board agrees with JAJM’s recommendation to deny relief, no 
further action should be taken regarding Special Selection Board 
(SSB) consideration for the applicant.  

The applicant was considered but not selected by the 
CY13 (A0413A) ANG Line and Nonline Major Promotion Selection 
Board and the CY14 (A0414A) ANG Line and Nonline Promotion 
Selection Board convened on 8 Apr 13 and 7 Apr 14, respectively.

The applicant states that he was not aware post board counseling 
was available for members who have been non-selected for 
promotion and had he known, he would have requested counseling 
after the CY13 board.  However, post board counseling is not an 
entitlement but a benefit afforded to members who have been non-
selected for promotion.  Information about post board counseling 
is available on the myPers website and sent to the field prior 
to each board.

The complete ARPC evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 10 Feb 15 for review and comment within 30 days.  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit E).

________________________________________________________________

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 office of primary 
responsibility 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 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-2014-03254 in Executive Session on 8 Apr 15, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                        , Panel Chair
	                       , Member
	                  , Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Aug 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 4 Nov 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, ARPC/PBP, dated 17 Dec 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Feb 15.




                                   
                                   
                                    

3