RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00149 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her second Article 15 for unprofessional relationship for solicitation be removed from her records. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. She received no prior counseling on the subject but instead was automatically given an Article 15. 2.  Other military members were involved and received no punishment until she provided additional information. 3.  The commander’s decision to give her an Article 15 was based on her having a previous Article 15. 4.  Information provided by another member involved contradicts with the time table of events. 5.  Her commander was never solicited by her to participate in the pyramid scheme but she was from others; however, she was the only one who received an Article 15. In support of her requests, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of several memorandums, AF IMT 1163, Statement of Suspects/Witnesses/Complaints and various other documents associated with her application. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is an active duty officer serving in the grade of first lieutenant (O-2) at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, as a Security Forces officer. In December 2011, she received an Article 15 for fraternization with an enlisted member who was married and assigned to her unit. On 19 June 2012, her commander initiated another Article 15 for wrongful violation of a lawful general regulation, in violation of Article 92, in which she solicited enlisted members to engage in a pyramid scheme for her benefit. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states that the applicant has not shown a clear error or injustice. She was afforded the opportunity to consult with defense counsel, accepted the Article 15 and waived her right to demand trial by court-martial. She was provided due process and her appeal of the punishment was reviewed by the Air Force Material Command Commander and the Article 15 was determined to be legally sufficient. The applicant does not make a compelling argument that the Board should overturn the commander’s original, nonjudicial punishment decision on the basis of injustice. The commander’s ultimate decision on the Article 15 action is firmly based on the evidence of the case and the punishment decision was well within the limits of the commander’s authority and discretion. The applicant has not shown a clear error or injustice and recommends no relief be granted. 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 24 February 2013 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a 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 an error or injustice that would warrant set aside of her Article 15. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation provided in support of her appeal, we do not believe she has suffered an injustice. Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the nonjudicial punishment was improper. In cases of this nature, we are not inclined to disturb the judgments of commanding officers absent a strong showing of abuse of discretionary authority. It is our opinion that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of proof of such. The evidence indicates that, during the processing of this Article 15 action, she was offered every right to which she was entitled. She was afforded the opportunity to consult with defense counsel, waived her right to demand trial by court-martial, and submitted written matters for review by the imposing commander. After considering the matters raised by the applicant, the commander determined that she had committed the alleged offense and imposed punishment on the applicant. She has not provided any evidence showing that the imposing commander abused his discretionary authority, that her substantial rights were violated during the processing of the Article 15 punishment, or that the punishment exceeded the maximum authorized by the UCMJ. 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-2013-00149 in Executive Session on 17 September 2013 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Jan 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Military Service Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 11 Feb 2013. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 2013. 1 2