RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01183 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The basis of the offense on his Article 15, “disorderly behavior,” be made consistent on all of his records, and all government agency’s records. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He has attempted to get employment with the airlines and they are receiving information which is inconsistent with the Article 15 he received in April 2000. The applicant does not provide any evidence in support of his appeal. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served from 2 June 1999 to 1 June 2005. He was trained and served as an Aircraft Structural Maintenance Technician and was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4) effective 21 January 2003. On 19 April 2000, the applicant received non-judicial punishment for being disorderly on or about 17 December 1999, by displaying indecent materials to minors while on emergency leave. He received punishment consisting of a reprimand and 30 days extra duty. The applicant was honorably discharged effective 1 June 2005 for completion of required active service. He served six years on active duty. On 21 October 2011, SAF/MRBR, notified the applicant that he could submit a request to the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) to expunge or correct information concerning his Air Force service as reflected in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial with regard to the applicant’s Article 15. JAJM states the applicant has not shown a clear error or injustice. JAJM indicates that the applicant’s issue appears not to be with the Article 15 itself, but rather how the events underlying the Article 15 have been reported elsewhere. The text of the commander’s reprimand gives a clue as to how the events that underpin the Article 15 may have been originally reported in law enforcement channels – “By displaying indecent materials to minors while you were on emergency leave, you have failed to meet the high standards of integrity required of airmen in today’s Air Force.” JAJM notes it is possible the applicant’s issue in this case has arisen from how the charges were initially reported to national criminal databases. This reporting is done contemporaneously with the criminal investigation and military justice action by Air Force law enforcement authorities - AFOSI and Security Forces. If any action by the Board is necessary, it should be directed to these Air Force entities to have them submit any necessary corrections to the national criminal databases. However, JAJM indicates there is no error in the fact that the commander commented in his reprimand on the facts underlying the charge against the applicant. Furthermore, a review of the non-judicial punishment action shows no error in the processing of the action. The applicant was given all of his rights throughout the process. He was able to present matters (with the assistance of legal counsel) to the commander for consideration before imposition of punishment. In addition, he was able to appeal the decision of his commander. The commander was in the best position to carefully weigh all of the evidence, make informed findings of fact, and arrive at a suitable punishment. The punishment imposed by Article 15 was appropriate to the offense and not unfairly harsh. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28 October 2011 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 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, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of 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-2011-01183 in Executive Session on 8 December 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-01183: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Mar 11. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 27 Apr 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Oct 11. Chair