RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03251 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) punishments, dated 10 September 2009 and 3 November 2009, be set-aside. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Article 15 she received for damaging property during a vehicle accident and leaving the scene of an accident is in error or unjust because she took responsibility for her actions and worked with her superiors and local nationals to fix the relationship. In regards to her 3 November 2009 Article 15, there was insufficient evidence of her being tardy to support an Article 15 punishment. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of her Article 15s, Law Enforcement documentation, Report of Investigation, response to Article 15, character references, and memorandums for record (MFRs). The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served on active duty from 29 July 2008 to 28 January 2010. She received two Article 15s and two Letters of Counseling (LOC) between 13 August 2009 and 12 November 2009. On 13 August 2009, the applicant was given an LOC for failure to go to a mandatory appointment at the time and place prescribed in violation of Article 87, Uniform Code of Military justice (UCMJ). On 10 September 2009, the applicant was offered non-judicial punishment for willfully and wrongfully damaging an off-base business in access of $500 damage in violation of Article 109, UCMJ; and, wrongfully leaving a scene of an accident without making her identity known in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. As a result, she received punishment consisting of a reprimand and base restriction for 45 days. On 3 November 2009, the applicant was offered non-judicial punishment for failure to go to her appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on divers occasions on or about 29 September 2009 to on or about 10 October 2009, without authority; and, failure to go to her appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on 15 October 2009, all in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. As a result, she received reduction in grade to airman basic (E-1) with a new date of rank of 13 November 2009; and, base restriction for 30 days. On 12 November 2009, the applicant received an LOC for dereliction in the performance of duties by failing to complete the office closing shift checklist, a standard procedure, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. On 20 January 2010, the applicant was notified of her commander’s intent to recommend her for a general (under honorable conditions) discharge for Misconduct: Minor Disciplinary Infractions, under the authority of Air Force Program Directive (AFPD) 36-32 and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208, paragraph 5.49. The applicant acknowledged her commander’s intent and waived her rights to consult counsel and to submit statements in her own behalf. Following the Staff Judge Advocate’s finding of the case being legally sufficient, the discharge authority approved the recommended discharge on 21 January 2010. The applicant was involuntarily released from active duty on 28 January 2010 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states neither of the applicant’s Article 15s appear to be an error or injustice which would justify setting-aside these punishments. The applicant had an opportunity to raise the arguments; she is making now, to her commander at the time of the non-judicial punishment proceedings. In addition, she had the opportunity to appeal her commander’s decisions. It is beyond three years since these punishments were imposed. The applicant has not shown; nor can they see, any reason why the Board should grant this late request. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 September 2013, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 an error or an injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We note the applicant’s contentions that the Article 15 punishments she received were unjust; however, the applicant has not provided evidence to show that the actions taken were arbitrary, capricious or not a reasonable response to the applicant’s offenses. While the impact of these actions on the applicant’s career may be regrettable, we do not find the actions serve to make the applicant the victim of error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we do not find it in the interest of justice 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-2013-03251 in Executive Session on 10 April 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-03251: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Jul 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 26 Aug 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Sep 13. Panel Chair 4 3 4