RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04749 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reduction in grade to senior airman (E-4) as a result of his Article 15 punishment be withdrawn or suspended and his grade of staff sergeant (E-5) be reinstated. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Article 15 punishment imposed is unjust and disproportionate to the offense committed (dereliction of duty for failing to pay the minimum due on his Military Star Card). He presented evidence stating that he was up-to-date on his payments at the time he was charged; however, his appeal was denied. Additionally, his commander did not consider the entirety of his circumstances in that the impact of the reduction in grade would result in a severe financial hardship upon his family. Additionally, his Rater, Chief, First Sergeant, and Commander, for their own reasons, did not care about his situation or the impact of this unfair punishment. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served in the Regular Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) prior to the events under review. On 11 Apr 13, the applicant’s commander notified him of her intent to impose non-judicial punishment (NJP) on the applicant for dereliction of duty. The specific reason for the action was the applicant, between on or about 15 Jan 13 and on or about 8 Apr 13, was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to pay the minimum payment due on his Military Star Card. On 16 Apr 13, the applicant acknowledged receipt, waived his right to a court martial, elected to submit a written presentation, and requested a personal appearance before the commander. On 18 Apr 13, the commander determined that the applicant committed the alleged offense. The applicant acknowledged receipt the same day and elected to appeal the punishment. On 29 Apr 13, the applicant’s commander denied the appeal and, on 30 Apr 13, the appellate authority also denied the appeal. On 30 Apr 13, the action was completed when the staff judge found it legally sufficient. As a result, the applicant was demoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4), with a date of rank of 18 Apr 13. On 9 Jun 14, the applicant was notified he was not selected for retention by the 5 May 14 Quality Force Review Board (QFRB) and, as result of his non-selection for retention, a mandatory date of separation (DOS) of 29 Sep 14 was established. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. On 11 Apr 13, the applicant was accused of willful dereliction of duty for failing to pay the minimum due on his Military Star Card in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. The applicant consulted an attorney and waived his right to a court-martial accepting the NJP proceedings. On 18 Apr 13, the applicant’s squadron commander found that the applicant had committed the alleged offense and reduced the applicant in grade from staff sergeant to senior airman. The applicant appealed the commander’s decision. On 30 Apr 13 the applicant’s group commander denied the appeal. On 7 May 13, the general-court martial convening authority’s staff judge advocate concluded the NJP record was compliant with applicable regulations. The applicant is asking the board to mitigate the Article 15 punishment by restoring his grade and pay. However, the applicant’s commander had the best opportunity to evaluate the evidence, aggravating as well as extenuating and mitigating in the case, and did not do so. Based on AFLOA/JAJM’s review of the case, they find no reason to grant the requested relief based on any error or injustice with the Article 15 process. A complete copy of the AFLOA/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 Jan 14 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). 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. 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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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-2013-04749 in Executive Session on 23 Sep 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-04749 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Sep 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 10 Jan 14. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jan 14.