RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01712
		INDEX CODE:  126.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Article 15 imposed on 29 August 2002 be downgraded to a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The investigation was superficial; the victim made false statements and the victim’s witness was interviewed while the applicant’s witness was not.  The legal office consulted with the opposition for confirmation regarding conflicting information and finally, a report existed stating that the victim’s bike was severely damaged yet no claim was ever presented to the applicant’s insurance company.

In support of his appeal, applicant has provided copies of the witness statements, an insurance report, two statements from the applicant to his commander on receipt of the Article 15, a copy of the Article 15 and correspondence between the applicant and Congressman Max Sandlin, with attachments.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was an Airman 1st Class, stationed at Rhein-Main Air Base, Frankfurt, Germany, on 5 August 2002 when he was involved in an automobile accident with a German national.  Applicant was offered non-judicial punishment in lieu of trial by court martial for wrongfully leaving the scene of an accident without identifying himself, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  Applicant accepted an Article 15 for said offense on 29 August 2002.  The punishment consisted of reduction in grade to Airman, suspended until 28 February 2003 unless sooner vacated, forfeiture of $200 and restriction to the limits of Rhein-Main Air Base for 14 days.  Applicant provided a statement to his commander for consideration in determining applicant’s punishment.  Applicant appealed the Article 15 to the appellate commander on 5 September 2002.  The appeal was denied on 6 September 2002 and subsequently found legally sufficient on 18 September 2002.  The applicant, several months prior to the accident, had been involved in a discreditable incident with German authorities in that he was a passenger on a train and had not paid for his ticket.  When questioned, he provided a false name and even signed documents with the false name.  He was given a Letter of Reprimand for this incident.  After the automobile accident, the applicant was involved in further misconduct while on duty that enabled his commander to vacate the suspended reduction in grade.  His commander declined to do so and issued a second LOR instead.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM found the applicant’s request to be without merit and recommends denial.  JAJM acknowledges the applicant’s claim to additional witnesses and their statements but decry the fact that the applicant provided no evidence to refute the claim that he did not, as required by German law, provide the victim with identification information following the accident.  Therefore, JAJM argues that there is no probable material error and the charge that he left the scene of an accident without providing requisite identification information to the victim is supported by the evidence and indeed is never disputed by the applicant.  JAJM declares that for a set-aside of the Article 15 to be granted, the evidence must demonstrate a probable material error or injustice.  The applicant’s evidence is insufficient to provide relief in this case.

AFLSA/JAJM’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 20 June 2003 for review and comment 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 error or injustice.  The evidence of record supports the comments of the Office of the Assistant Chief, Military Justice Division, in particular, the fact that the applicant admittedly left the scene of an accident and failed to provide requisite identification information prior to leaving the accident scene.  We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01712 in Executive Session on 19 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 4 Jun 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 03.

                                   Panel Chair