RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03205 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Article 15 be set aside and his rank (and all allowances) be restored to the grade of master sergeant (E-7). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The investigation into an alleged adultery charge was incomplete and there is no evidence of an adulterous affair. The interviewing officer did not speak to the person with whom he was accused of having an affair with, and his wife was not interviewed. Further, the commander never obtained witness statements against him. He provides a signed statement from his wife and the person he allegedly had the adulterous affair with; both statements corroborate his contention no affair occurred. He also provides an unsigned memorandum from an Area Defense Counsel (ADC) member. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 6 Dec 93, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 28 May 14, the applicant’s commander notified him he was being considered for nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15. On 5 Jun 14, the applicant acknowledged receipt of punishment under Article 15 for adultery, lying about the relationship on two occasions, and a violation of a no contact order. The punishment consisted of reduction in grade to technical sergeant (E-6) and a reprimand. On 10 Jun 14, the applicant appealed his punishment. His appeal was denied by both his squadron and group commander On 30 Oct 14, the applicant retired from active duty as a technical sergeant (E-6), effective 1 Nov 14, and was credited with 20 years, 10 months, and 25 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: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant does not make a compelling argument the Board should overturn the commander’s original NJP decision on the basis of injustice or insufficient evidence. It is his burden to provide the board with all evidence to support his claims. In this case, he failed to submit his NJP or the evidence presented to him. He only submits two statements from witnesses that it appears he procured; it is unclear whether these were ever presented to the commander for consideration. The base legal office provided all of the evidence used against him and there is clearly enough evidence to support the commander’s finding. In addition, the commander’s ultimate decision on the NJP action was reviewed on multiple levels for legal sufficiency and it was determined that the commander’s decision was rooted in firm evidence of the case and the punishment decisions was well within the limits of the commander’s authority and discretion. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant received an Article 15 for adultery, lying about the relationship on two occasions, and a violation of a no contact order. His punishment consisted of a reduction in grade to technical sergeant (E-6) and a reprimand. He appealed the punishment but his appeal was denied by both his squadron and group commander. AFLOA/JAJM’s position to deny the applicant’s request is supported; however, if the Board determines an error or injustice has occurred, and elects to restore the grade of master sergeant (E-7), the appropriate date of rank and effective date is 1 Feb 11. A complete copy of the AFPC/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 9 Jan 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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, to include his witness statements, in judging the merits of the case; however, 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 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-2014-03205 in Executive Session on 21 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 31 Jul 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 6 Nov 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 6 Dec 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jan 15.