RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00453 INDEX CODE: 126.04, 112.10 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Article 15 she received on 20 Dec 06 be removed and her Reentry (RE) code of 2X (First-term, second-term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)) be changed. ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Article 15 she received was given under false statements from others, which subsequently led to her discharge. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides extracts from her Article 15 correspondence and copies of pertinent directives to support her appeal. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 17 Jun 98, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air. She was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E- 4/SrA). While serving in the grade of SrA, the applicant’s commander offered her nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for an attempted assault on a fellow airman and for disobeying a no contact order. The applicant accepted the NJP proceedings and waived her right to demand trial by court-martial. She presented matters to and personally appeared before the commander, who, on 20 Dec 06, decided the applicant committed the alleged offenses. Her punishment consisted of a suspended reduction in grade to airman first class (E-3/A1C), a suspended forfeiture of pay, 15 days of extra duty, and a reprimand. The applicant did not appeal the commander’s findings or the punishment. The applicant was honorably released from active duty under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, on 15 Mar 07, with a reason for separation of completion of required active service, and issued an RE code of 2X. She was credited with 8 years, 8 months, and 29 days of active duty service. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. In their discussion of the case, they note that NJP is authorized by Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and is governed by the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 51-201, Administration of Military Justice. The applicant contends that the NJP was given to her “under false statements from others,” and led to her eventual involuntary separation. She has not provided any new information beyond what was provided to the commander at the time of the NJP proceedings. Based on this alone, she has not met her burden of proof to show error or injustice on the part of the commander in issuing nonjudicial punishment for these offenses. The commander was in the best position to carefully weigh all of the evidence, make informed findings in fact, and arrive at a suitable punishment. Furthermore, if the applicant believed the Article 15 findings were in error, her first recourse should have been to appeal them to the next higher authority. However, she opted to not appeal. The punishment imposed in the Article 15 was appropriate and contrary to the applicant’s assertion, not unfairly harsh. The applicant actually served only 15 days of extra duty and received a reprimand; the rest of the punishment was suspended and later remitted. The punishments were authorized and commensurate to the offenses committed. The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change her RE code. They note, although there is no AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, in the records, it is reasonable based on a presumption of normality the commander non-selected the applicant for reenlistment considering the information listed in the Article 15 and placement on the control roster. AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, states commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non-selection authority. The Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) considers the members Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) ratings, unfavorable information from any substantiated source, the airman’s willingness to comply with Air Force standards and/or the airman’s ability (or lack of) to meet required training and duty performance levels. The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 6 Aug 10 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case. However, in our view, the Air Force office of primary responsibility and the Air Force Legal Operations Agency have adequately addressed the issues presented by the applicant and we are in agreement with their opinion and recommendation. We find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred during the NJP proceedings; nor has the applicant provided any evidence which would lead us to believe the NJP was contrary to the provisions of the governing directives, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. Additionally, at the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and the circumstances of their separation. Based upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs and without evidence to the contrary, we believe the RE code issued was in accordance with the governing directives. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2010-00453 in Executive Session on 30 September 2010, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Jan 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 17 Mar 10. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 6 May 10. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 10.