ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03450

	COUNSEL: YES

	HEARING: YES

RESUME OF THE CASE:

On 8 Dec 16 and on 4 Jan 17, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request to set aside his Article 15, finding the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to call into question the credibility of the arresting officer who was involved in misconduct in other duties; however, there was no evidence that the applicant’s case was impacted by such misconduct.  The Board found the non-judicial punishment (NJP) was still within his commander’s authority, should remain a matter of record, and the remaining corrections requested were inappropriate as they were predicated on the removal of the Article 15.  For an accounting of the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision, see the AFBCMR Letter and Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F.

On 17 Dec 17, the applicant requested reconsideration of his request to set aside his Article 15 and restore all rights and privileges accruing had he not been punished under Article 15. He again contends the Board gave no consideration to the fact the arresting civilian police officer was fire from his duties for dishonesty and lying on previous police reports.  Furthermore, no consideration was given to the defense of “self-defense” which was applicable in his case.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit G.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denying the application.  While the applicant has presented more detailed information than he did in his original case, he still argues that the victim is not credible, the arresting officer is not credible, and that he acted in self-defense.  Contrary to the applicant’s attorney’s claims, AFLOA/JAJM consider all the arguments presented in the initial appeal, just as in the request for reconsideration.  The applicant has not met his burden.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit H.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 13 Aug 18 for comment (Exhibit I), and the applicant’s counsel replied on 3 Sep 18.  In his response, the applicant’s counsel contends that his applicant has met the burden of providing new evidence to support the appeal.  The applicant did not cite the Florida statute in the original brief and new arguments are considered “new evidence” for purposes of an appeal.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit J.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board remains unconvinced the evidence presented demonstrates an error or injustice and therefore finds no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFLOA/JAJM and finds that they did consider all the arguments presented to include the arresting officers misconduct and the Florida statute involving self-defense.  The Board still finds that the NJP action was within the commander’s authority, the evidence provided does not reflect misconduct by the arresting officer in the applicant’s case, and the preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions. Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

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 the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

The application was adjudicated without a personal appearance.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2015-03450 in Executive Session on 26 Sep 18:

Chair
Panel Member
Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit F:	Record of Proceedings, w/ Exhibits A-E, signed 9 Jan 17.
Exhibit G:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 17 Dec 17.
Exhibit H:	Advisory opinion, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 3 Jul 18. 
Exhibit I:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 13 Aug 18.
Exhibit J:	Applicant’s counsel response, dated 3 Sep 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings of Docket Number BC-2015-03450 required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.