RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02180 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP) under Article 15 imposed on 27 Jun 13; all punishments be removed, and his security clearance and grade be restored. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His Article 15 was unjust. He received an Article 15 for using system knowledge to correctly troubleshoot an aircraft component. He has documented evidence where the part in question was not inoperative, and was not a safety of flight issue. He has proof of how his commander knowingly allowed numerous Noncommissioned Officers (NCOs) get away with Air Force policy violations, which range from falsifying aircraft forms; an arrest in the local community for Driving under the Influence (DUI), and numerous Government Travel Card (GTC) violations, without receiving similar punishments as he did. He has proof that he was singled out and had to file a Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) complaint; however, he was questioned about this by his senior NCO and his commander took no action. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 13 Feb 02, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force. On 2 Jul 13, the applicant's squadron commander offered the applicant nonjudicial punishment proceedings for willfully failing to complete a maintenance check on an aircraft that had a loose part in the air conditioning system, in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice. After consulting with counsel, the applicant accepted the nonjudicial punishment proceedings and submitted written matters in his behalf. After considering the evidence and the applicant's submission, the squadron commander found the applicant committed the alleged misconduct. The squadron commander sentenced the applicant to be reduced to the grade of Senior Airman (E-4) with a new date of rank of 22 Jul 13. On 29 Jul 13, the applicant appealed the decision on the Article 15 stating that he did not do an operations check on the air conditioning unit and never stated that he did. On 7 Aug 13, the appellate authority denied the applicant's appeal. On 15 Apr 14, the applicant was honorably discharged with a reason for separation of miscellaneous/general reasons, and was credited with 12 years, 2 months, and 3 days of active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. JAJM notes that NJP is authorized by Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (10 U.S.C. § 815), and governed by the Manual for Courts-Martial (Part V) and AFI 51-202, Nonjudicial Punishment. This procedure permits commanders to dispose of certain offenses without trial by court-martial unless the service member objects. Service members first must be notified by their commanders of the nature of the charged offenses, the evidence supporting the offenses, and the commander's intent to impose the punishment. The member may consult with a defense counsel to determine whether to accept the NJP or demand trial by court-martial. Accepting the proceedings is simply a choice of forum; it is not an admission of guilt. NJP is also not, when imposed, a criminal conviction. A member accepting Article 15 proceedings may submit written matters to, and have a hearing with, the commander imposing the punishment. The member may have a spokesperson at the hearing, may request that witnesses appear and testify, and may present evidence. The commander must consider any information offered by the member and must be convinced by reliable evidence that the member committed the offenses before imposing punishment. Members who wish to contest their commander's determination or the severity of the punishment imposed may appeal to the next higher commander. The appeal authority may deny the appeal altogether if the appeal authority agrees with the action taken or may remove or modify the Article 15 if he or she disagrees in whole or in part with the action. That said, a commander considering a case for disposition under Article 15 exercises largely unfettered discretion in evaluating the case, both as to whether punishment is warranted and, if so, the nature and extent of punishment. The exercise of that discretion should generally not be reversed or otherwise changed on appeal or by the Board absent good cause. Ultimately, the squadron commander considered the evidence and decided the applicant should have performed the operational check, whether he claimed he did or didn't. The appellate authority agreed, and they did not find good cause to disagree. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to restore his rank to SSgt. DPSOE notes that JAJM has reviewed the case and determined there were no legal errors requiring corrective action regarding the nonjudicial process and recommended the applicant's request to remove the Article 15 be denied. DPSOE uses JAJM’s determination as the basis for their recommendation. The complete DPOSE evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterates his original contentions that he did not commit the alleged offense and that he has not been treated fairly as others who have committed similar and more egregious offenses. He explains the circumstances which led to his Article 15 punishment and the numerous violations of other airmen that went unpunished. He has questioned the alleged offense, since the beginning, and has not been provided an answer as to the specific policy he violated. The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit F. 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 and the Air Force Legal Operations Agency 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. 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-2014-02180 in Executive Session on 7 May 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 May 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 17 Jul 14. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 6 Aug 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Sep 14. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Oct 14, w/atch.