RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00742 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Article 15 dated 14 Jul 08 be expunged from his records. 2. His Article 15 dated 19 Jan 10 be expunged from his records. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His Article 15 dated 14 Jul 08 was in error because the punishment exceeded the one month (and/or 31 days), as prescribed by the governing AFI, and was not attached to an Unfavorable Information File (UIF). He should have held the rank of airman first class (E- 3) and would have been promoted to senior airman (E-4) in Jun 09. Therefore, the Article 15 dated 19 Jul 10 is in error because the rank listed is wrong due to an error in the first Article 15. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his nonjudicial punishment package w/atchs, a copy of his AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report, and a copy of his application for correction/removal of evaluation reports. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of airman first class (E-3). Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states the applicant was charged on two different occasions: 1) For violation of Article 92; for viewing pornography and 2) For violation of Article 92; for wrongfully using his government travel card to make unauthorized purchases. The applicant’s commander imposed nonjudicial punishment; after consulting with counsel, the applicant accepted the Article 15s and waived his right to trial by court-martial. He submitted a written presentation and made a personal appearance before the commander; however, the commander decided the applicant committed the alleged offense and imposed punishment consisting solely of reducing him to the grade of airman. The applicant did not appeal. The commander did not file the first Article 15 in his UIF; however, for the second Article 15, the applicant was reduced to the grade of airman basic, suspended through 10 Jul 10; forfeiture of pay of $56.00, suspended through 10 Jul 10; and a reprimand. The applicant did not appeal. The commander filed the second Article 15 in his UIF. A legal review of the nonjudicial punishment was found to be legally sufficient. JAJM states the applicant’s allegation of error in the nonjudicial punishment action is focused on the fact that he was reduced in rank, despite his commander’s decision to not file the action in the applicant’s UIF. JAJM believes the applicant’s assertion is misplaced in this case. The governing AFI requires commanders who impose nonjudicial punishment terms exceeding one month to file the action in the member’s UIF; however, if the punishment does not exceed one month, a UIF entry is optional. Although it may have long-lasting collateral ramifications, an unsuspended reduction in grade takes effect on the date the commander imposes punishment. As a result of this immediate effect, the governing AFI lists nonjudicial punishments consisting solely of an unsuspended reduction in grade as an “optional” UIF entry. The punishment was within the commander’s discretion and legal limits; therefore, JAJM cannot support the applicant’s request. The AFLOA/JAJM 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 2 Apr 10 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response. ___________________________________________________________________ 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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that his uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in 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-2010-00742 in Executive Session on 14 Dec 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Feb 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 26 Mar 10. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 10.