RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02428 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code 
of Military Justice (UCMJ), dated 24 May 10, be voided. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The Article 15 is based on a Commander-Directed Investigation 
(CDI), which was merely hearsay. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of the 
CDI Report from the 90 MW/JA. 

 

His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of 
staff sergeant (E-5). 

 

Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the 
Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts 
in this Record of Proceedings. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. The applicant was charged with one 
specification of dereliction of duty for failing to maintain a 
professional relationship with a subordinate airman; and one 
specification of making statements to his subordinates that he 
engaged in sexual relationships with women who were not his wife, 
which were prejudicial to good order and discipline. The 
applicant accepted the Article 15 and waived his right to demand 
trial by court-martial after consulting with counsel. He 
submitted written matters to the commander in appeal to the 


Article 15; however, the commander decided the applicant 
committed the offenses and imposed punishment. He was reduced in 
grade from technical sergeant to staff sergeant and suspended 
forfeiture of $1,462.00 pay per month for two months. Although 
the applicant appealed to his commander, his appeal was denied. 
A legal review was accomplished and it was determined to be 
legally sufficient. 

 

In this case, the applicant has not raised any genuine doubt as 
to his guilt of the offenses for which he was punished, or 
established any error or injustice in his Article 15 action such 
that a removal of the Article 15 would be in the best interests 
of the Air Force. 

 

When the applicant waived his right to demand trial by court-
martial, he accepted that his commander would decide whether he 
committed the offenses and what the appropriate punishment would 
be. The applicant does not provide any additional evidence that 
was not considered by the commander at the time of the non-
judicial punishment was rendered and the commander had sufficient 
evidence available to find the applicant had committed the 
charged offenses. Even the legal review points out, “[t]he IO’s 
findings further show by a preponderance of the evidence that 
[the applicant] engaged in other conduct prejudicial to good 
order and discipline, including indicating to subordinates that 
he engaged in adulterous affairs and engaged in an unprofessional 
relationship with SrA T…” 

 

The punishment imposed in the Article 15 was appropriate and not 
overly harsh. The commander was in the best position to 
carefully weigh all the evidence and make an informed decision. 

 

The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 9 Sep 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this 
date, this office has received no response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 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 adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 
that 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-2011-02428 in Executive Session on 24 Jan 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 
 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Apr 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 24 Aug 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Sep 11.