RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01038
		INDEX NUMBER:  126.04

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, imposed on 22 January 1999, be set aside and that all references to the Article 15 action be expunged from his record.  

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He does not deny he made an error in judgment on 29 December 1998, when he made a false official statement indicating he had administered an Enlistment Screening Test to a recruit prior to sending him to the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS).  He believes he was set up when he was ordered to fax a written statement within a specified time period as to when the test was administered and the score received.  He called his supervisor and told him he lied and had not administered the test.  Because he revealed his false official statement before he was investigated, the decision to impose Article 15 punishment was unduly severe.  He did deserve administrative action, but believes he was targeted with pointless Letters of Reprimand (LORs) and Letters of Admonishment (LOAs) as a basis for Article 15 punishment at a later date.  He was told that the decision to punish him by Article 15 instead of by an LOR was because previous LORs and LOAs had not been effective.  His commander told him he did not remember receiving his rebuttals to the LORs and the LOAs prior to making his decision to impose Article 15 punishment.  His rebuttals to the LORs and LOAs were removed.  He was given the most severe punishment after he provided a statement against his supervisor, who had ordered a recruit to conceal medical evidence.  

His complete submission, which includes nine attachments, is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 22 January 1999, as a staff sergeant, the applicant was punished under Article 15 for making a false official statement, to wit:  that he administered an Enlistment Screening Test to a recruit prior to sending him to the MEPS, which statement was totally false, and was then known by him to be false.

Punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of senior airman and forfeiture of $100 pay for two months; however, the reduction in grade was suspended until 21 April 1999, after which time it was remitted.

The applicant consulted counsel; waived his right to court-martial; and accepted nonjudicial proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ.  He did not appeal.  

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of technical sergeant.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Associate Chief, Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, recommended denial.  After reviewing the evidence and the applicant’s submissions, the commander found he had committed the offense alleged.  The punishment imposed was lawful.  The applicant provided no evidence of a clear error or injustice related to the nonjudicial punishment proceedings.  He agrees that action was appropriate but differs on the degree of action taken.  JAJM’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 July 2001, for review and response within 30 days.  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 probable error or injustice.  The applicant provided a false official statement.  After considering the evidence and the applicant’s submissions, the commander imposed punishment under Article 15.  The applicant agrees that punishment was appropriate but disagrees with the degree of punishment.  However, in our view, the commander was in the best position to evaluate the evidence.  We have seen no evidence from the applicant that would lead us to believe that the commander abused his discretionary authority when he determined that the applicant had committed the offense charged and when he decided the nature and degree of punishment.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we agree with the recommendation of the Associate Chief, Military Justice Division, and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision to deny the application.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 this application in Executive Session on 9 October 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 April 2001, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 22 June 2001.
    Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MIBR, dated 6 July 2001.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair