RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00527 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Article 15 be reduced to a lesser form of punishment. 2. His forfeiture of pay in the amount of $1,181.00 for two months be decreased. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He believes the punishment imposed was unjust and disproportionate to the offense committed. His duty performance has been exceptional. The punishment will inflict a severe hardship for which he may not be able to overcome. He does not want to get into further trouble or bring discredit to the Air Force by not paying his bills on-time. He accepts full responsibility for the consequences of his actions; however, he does not feel that the punishment matches the accusations. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, a copy of the Report of Investigation from Office of Special Investigations (OSI), excerpts from his military personnel records, a copy of his financial statement, and copies of letters of support. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of senior airman (E-4). The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. The applicant was offered nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being charged with one specification of violating paragraph 4.3.3 of the Air Education and Training Command Instruction 36-2909, Professional and Unprofessional Relationships, by wrongfully conducting a personal relationship with one of his trainees, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. The applicant does not allege an error or an injustice in the processing of the nonjudicial punishment against him. He just asks that the punishment received to be proportional with the misconduct that he committed. However, the commander at the time had the best opportunity to evaluate the evidence in the case. Therefore, with that perspective, the commander exercised the discretion that the applicant granted him when the applicant accepted the Article 15 and found the nonjudicial punishment to be appropriate in this case. Further, the legal reviewed revealed that the commander did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in making his decision. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE defers to the JAJM recommendation. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 6 Apr 13 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 careful consideration of the available evidence, we found no indication the actions taken to effect his UCMJ punishment was improper or contrary to the provisions of the governing regulations in effect at the time, or the actions taken against the applicant were based on factors other than his own misconduct. Therefore, 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. Consequently, we conclude that no basis exists to grant favorable action on his request. 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 issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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-2013-00527 in Executive Session on 17 Oct 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jan 13, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 15 Mar 13. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 22 Mar 13. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Apr 13. 1 2