ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1999-00958
		INDEX CODE:  126.00, 111.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests that the Article 15, dated 1 August 1996, and the Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) closing 30 September 1996 and 28 January 1997 be reviewed. 

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date is 3 December 1990 and his High year of Tenure is 1 December 2010.

On 1 August 1996, he was given an Article 15 for disobeying a direct order.  He was fined $150.00 a month for two months, restricted to the base for 30 days, ordered to serve 30 days of extra duty and received a suspended reduction in grade to Airman First Class.

On 9 April 1999, the applicant submitted an application requesting that the Article 15, dated 1 August 1996, be set aside and the EPRs closing 30 September 1996 and 28 January 1997 be declared void or be upgraded.

On 23 February 2000, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s requests.  A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit E.

On 7 November 2002, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration, contending that he was punished under Article 15 for a crime that he did not commit.  In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement and three character references, a copy of three nominations for awards, and copies of five thank you letters,  (Exhibit F).

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

In earlier findings in this case, the Board determined that insufficient evidence had been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After reviewing the information provided by the applicant, the Board majority does not believe a revision of the earlier findings in this case is warranted.  The Board majority does not believe that the evidence provided is sufficient to show that the imposition of the contested nonjudicial punishment on the applicant was contrary to the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice or that it was unjust.  In cases of this nature, the Board majority does not believe it appropriate to disturb the discretionary judgments of commanding officers absent a showing of abuse of that authority.  The Board majority does not believe there has been such a showing here.  The reason the nonjudicial proceedings were initiated against the applicant is clearly stated in the record.  It appears the applicant was afforded every right to which he was entitled.  The applicant waived his right to demand trial by court-martial and accepted the nonjudicial proceedings.  After considering the evidence, the commander determined he had committed the alleged offense and that the punishment should be imposed.  A superior commander upheld the commander’s decision, when that officer denied the applicant’s appeal.  Other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence showing that the information considered by the commander was erroneous, that his substantial rights were violated, that the punishment was excessive, or that the commanders abused their discretionary authority.  The Board majority noted the only new evidence not seen by the commanders in the applicant’s chain of command when the punishment was imposed are supportive statements from officers who became acquainted with the applicant in his follow-on assignments.  While the authors of these statements think well of the applicant, the Board majority does not find the contents of their statements relate any new information concerning the events which served as a basis for the nonjudicial punishment or demonstrate an abuse of discretion on the part of the applicant’s superiors occurred at the time the punishment was imposed.  Accordingly, the Board majority declines to favorably consider the applicant’s request that the Article 15 punishment be set aside.

As to the applicant’s requests concerning the contested EPRs, in the absence of persuasive evidence by the applicant showing the information contained in the reports is erroneous or that the reports are inaccurate depictions of his performance during the referent periods, the Board majority agrees with the AFPC/DPPPAB assessment of his requests concerning the reports closing in 1996 and 1997 and finds no basis on which to favorably consider their removal from the records or to upgrade their ratings.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 20 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application.  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX voted to correct the records but does not desire to submit a Minority Report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit E.  Record of Proceedings, dated 8 Mar 00, w/atchs.	Exhibit F.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Nov 02, w/atchs.

                                   

DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1999-00958
INDEX CODE:  126.00, 111.02

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD 
			FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of 

	I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the application be denied.

	Please advise the applicant accordingly.