RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-00418
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reduction in grade to senior airman with a new date of rank 
to 8 December 2011 be set aside.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not disobey a lawful order on or about 6 February 2012.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in 
the grade of senior airman.

On 29 November 2011, the applicant received non-judicial 
punishment under Article 15 for being derelict in the 
performance of his duties, in violation of Article 92, of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and disorderly conduct, 
in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.

The applicant was sentenced to reduction in grade from staff 
sergeant to senior airman (suspended through 7 June 2012) and to 
perform 15 days extra duties.

On 26 April 2012, the commander notified the applicant that the 
commander was considering whether to vacate some or all of the 
suspended punishment for the applicant’s failure to obey a 
lawful order in violation of Article 92, UCMJ.

After consulting with counsel the applicant submitted a written 
presentation on his behalf.  The commander found the applicant 
committed the misconduct and remitted the reduction to the grade 
of senior airman with a new date of rank of 8 December 2011.  





AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial.  JAJM states the applicant has 
submitted the transcript of a later-convened administrative 
discharge board which found the applicant did not disobey a 
lawful order and recommended the applicant be retained.  The 
applicant states that he did not disobey a lawful order.  In 
support of the applicant’s contention, he points to the 
discharge board’s finding. 

With respect to the applicant’s contention, it is not unusual 
for different people to look at the same or similar evidence and 
come to different decisions.  However, in this case, the 
findings associated with the Article 15 and subsequent vacation 
action was within the discretion and authority of the commander.  
The commander’s finding and decision with respect to the 
vacation action should not necessarily be reversed by the Board 
simply because a discharge board disagreed with the commander 
and made a different finding.  Therefore, we do not find there 
is good cause to grant the relief requested.

The JAJM complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 15 September 2014, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 
30 days (Exhibit C).  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 is 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 opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the 
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the 
existence 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.



4.  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 our understanding of the issues involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an 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-2014-00418 in Executive Session on 8 January 2015, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 15 January 2014, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 1 April 2014.
  Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 September 2014.