RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00348

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be restored to his previous rank of technical sergeant 
(TSgt/E-6).  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During his court-martial, there was key information not allowed 
by the judge and statements by trial council which should not 
have been admitted.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
4 Dec 89.

Under General Court-Martial Order No. 20, dated 17 Feb 11, the 
applicant was found guilty of wrongfully and knowingly 
possessing a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexual 
explicit conduct, in violation of Article 134 of the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

On 26 May 11, Under Special Order AC-010557, the Secretary of 
the Air Force determined that the applicant had served 
satisfactorily in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) and ordered 
the applicant advanced to said grade on the retired list on 
17 Feb 20.  

On 1 Aug 11, the applicant retired in the grade of senior airman 
(E-4), and was credited with 21 years, 5 months, and 14 days of 
active service.   

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C 
and D.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
upgrade his grade, indicating there is no evidence of an error 
or an injustice.  The applicant was court-martialed for 
wrongfully and knowingly possessing a visual depiction of a 
minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.  For this, he was 
sentenced to 90 days of confinement, reduced in grade to senior 
airman (E-4), and received a reprimand.  The applicant retired 
in the grade of E-4.  AFLOA/JAJM found no error in the 
processing of the court-martial, and recommends no relief be 
granted.  Therefore, the applicant’s rank should not be 
restored.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  The applicant is asking that the 
criminal charges for which he was convicted be removed from his 
record.  In accordance with 10 USC §1552(f)(2), the Board does 
not have the statutory authority to remove criminal charges from 
the applicant’s record.  However, it does have the authority to 
make a recommendation with respect to the rank upgrade.  The 
maximum sentence of the crime of which the applicant was found 
guilty was ten years confinement, reduction to the grade of 
airman basic (E-1), and forfeitures of all pay and allowances.  
After review of the case, the findings and sentence were found 
to be supported in law.  The applicant claims there was “key 
information” which the military judge did not admit into 
evidence and there were statements made by the Government’s 
expert witness that should not have been admitted.  Based upon 
our review, the military judge did not abuse his discretion with 
respect to evidentiary rulings.  

A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 25 Aug 14 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.





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 opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility (OPR) and adopt their 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.

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 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-2014-00348 in Executive Session on 22 Jan 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-00348 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Jan 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 3 Mar 14.
Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 30 Jul 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Aug 14.