RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01323 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Article 15 and any references to it, to include in his Evaluation Performance Report (EPR) ending 16 July 2008, be removed from his records. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Article 15 is preventing him from obtaining a criminal justice position. He is older and has learned his lesson. The Article 15 was for dereliction of duty as a result of missing work. He was in pain as a result of a spinal injury and was unable to sleep at night. Consequently he did not wake up in time for work. His commander claimed he was lying and lacked integrity. A few months later, the same commander said he was not fit for military service due to his spinal injury and recommended he be discharged. He is nearing completion of his bachelor’s degree in criminal justice and is unable to gain employment because law enforcement agencies have determined his Article 15 is an automatic disqualifier. The removal of the derogatory information is required for him to move forward with his life and be a productive member of society. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 13 September 2005, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. The applicant’s AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt), for the period ending 16 July 2008, was referred because he was arrested for drinking 5 hours prior to a 12 hour shift, failure to meet dress and appearance standards by wearing piercings in uniform. According to the AF Form 3070A, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings (AB thru TSgt), dated 30 October 2008, the applicant received an Article 15 for violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. He was reduced to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C, E-3), with a new date of rank of 10 November 2008, forfeiture of $300.00 pay and 45 days extra duty, which was suspended through 9 May 2009. According to the AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, dated 10 March 2010, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) recommended the applicant be discharged with severance pay for an unfitting compensable and ratable condition of chronic low back pain. The applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, reflects he was honorably discharged on 28 June 2010 with a narrative reason for separation of “Disability, Severance Pay.” AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the Article 15 due to the lack of any legal error or injustice with the Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP). The application is also untimely and was received 5.5 years after the NJP action was completed. The arguments the applicant advances do not have any bearing on the legality of the NJP. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the contested EPR. The applicant has not provided compelling evidence to show that the report was unjust or inaccurate as written. Furthermore, the application was not submitted in a timely manner. The applicant has waited 6 years to file his appeal and offers no justification for the delay. The applicant contends that his 16 July 2008 EPR should be removed from his records due to his belief it mentions an Article 15. There is no mention of an Article 15 in the contested EPR. The report is marked as “Does Not Meet” in Section III, Block 2, for being arrested for drinking 5 hours prior to a 12 hour shift and failure to meet dress and appearance standards by wearing piercings in uniform. In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, paragraph 1.3.1, evaluators are strongly encouraged to comment on misconduct that reflects a disregard of the law, whether civil law or UCMJ, or when adverse actions have been taken. In this case, the applicant provided insufficient evidence to prove his assertions that the comments on the EPR were inaccurate or unjust. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. The applicant has failed to provide necessary information/support from any rating official on the contested EPR. Without the benefit of these statements and the evidence provided, DPSID concludes the report is accurate as written and it was accomplished IAW policies and procedures. A complete copy of the DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 12 August 2015 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 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 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 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. 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-2014-01323 in Executive Session on 3 September 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 March 2014. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 7 January 2015. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 10 August 2015. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 August 2015.