RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2016-04101

		COUNSEL:  NONE

	HEARING:  NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST.  That his  Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) under Article 15, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) imposed on 17 Feb 89, be set aside and removed from his records.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTION.  The Article 15 he received was unjust.  He was wrongfully accused of identifying himself as a security policeman to a member of the local fire department.  There were no records found showing the individual worked for the fire department.  Having the Article 15 in his record has cost him loss of rank and employment.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.  The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 28 Feb 73.
During his military career, the applicant received three Article 15s, in 1975 (for sleeping on duty), 1982 (for driving while intoxicated), and 1989 (for wrongfully identifying himself as a security policeman).  On 1 Dec 94, the applicant retired with 20 years and 26 days of active duty service.  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION.  AFLOA/JAJM recommends denying the application.  There is no evidence of an error or injustice occurring in the processing of the applicant’s NJP action.  Furthermore, his request is untimely.  The applicant had an opportunity to present written matters to his commander and consult with an attorney at the time of each NJP action.  Unfortunately, due to the passage of time, there is no feasible way to assess applicant’s assertions of fact other than based on the applicant’s recollection, and we do not find that a 2016 search of personnel records going back to 1989 is sufficient evidence to warrant setting aside an NJP action.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION.  The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 16 Aug 17 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 23 Aug 17.  In his response, the applicant describes the circumstances of situations that occurred during his military service. He further asserts he was being targeted because he reported the inappropriate actions and behaviors of personnel within the Security Forces squadron.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES:

1.  The application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.  

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error and injustice.  The Board concurs with AFLOA/JAJM and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  While the applicant asserts a date of discovery less than three years before the Board’s receipt of the application, the Board does not find the assertion reasonable.  Therefore, the Board finds the application untimely and concludes it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.

4.  In regards to the applicant’s assertions of being the victim of a reprisal.  By policy, reprisal complaints must be filed within 60 days of the alleged incident or discovery to facilitate the inspector general (IG) investigation.  There is no evidence showing the applicant filed an IG complaint that alleged reprisal and there is no evidence an investigation for reprisal was done.  Nevertheless, based on the authority granted to this Board pursuant to Title 10 U.S.C. Section 1034, we reviewed the complete evidence of record to reach our own independent determination of whether reprisal occurred.  Based on our review, we do not conclude the applicant has been the victim of reprisal.  Therefore, the Board does not find that the applicant has been the victim of reprisal pursuant to Title 10, U.S.C. Section 1034.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS: The applicant be informed that the application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.  It is the recommendation of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely.

CERTIFICATION: The following quorum of the Board, as defined in paragraph 1.5 of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-04101, in Executive Session on 5 Apr 18:

	, Panel Chair
	, Panel Member
	, Panel Member

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

Exhibit A: Applicant’s application, DD Form 149, dated 7 Oct 16, w/atchs.
Exhibit B: Documentary evidence, including excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C: Advisory opinion, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 22 Feb 17.
Exhibit D: Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBR to applicant, dated 16 Aug 17.
Exhibit E:  Applicant’s response to Exhibit D, dated 23 Aug 17, w/atchs.

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