RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00797 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His AF Form 3070A, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings (AB thru TSgt), dated 31 Oct 12, be set aside in its entirety; and all records resulting from it be removed from his record. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He is not guilty of the charges brought against him during his Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP) proceedings for the following reasons: Mere possession of Flexeril is not punishable under Article 92, UCMJ; Flexeril is not an “intoxicating” substance as described by AFI 44-120, Military Drug Demand Program, paragraph 1.1.6. Since he did not use any of the Flexeril, he could not have used it contrary to its medical purpose or in excess of prescribed dosage; If Flexeril was an intoxicating substance, mere possession is only punishable under AFI 44-120, paragraph 1.1.6 if there was intent to use it; There was no evidence he had used or had intended to use Flexeril and there was no argument to support a guilty decision, so Counsel advised him to accept the Article 15. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 26 Jul 11, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. According to the AF Form 3070A provided by the applicant, dated 31 Oct 12, on or about 17 Oct 12, he failed to obey a lawful general regulation, AFI 44-120, by wrongfully possessing a bottle of medication that was not prescribed to him. On 31 Oct 12, he received notice his commander was considering whether to punish him under Article 15, UCMJ. On 5 Nov 2012, he acknowledged receipt and indicated he had consulted a lawyer, was waiving his right to court-martial accepting nonjudicial punishment proceedings, had attached a written presentation, and requested a personal appearance. On 7 Nov 12, his commander decided he committed the alleged offense, violating Article 92, UCMJ. He reprimanded him and reduced him to the grade of airman which was suspended through 6 May 13. The applicant acknowledged receipt that day. On 14 Nov 12, he notified his commander he was appealing and providing a written submission. His commander denied his appeal and stated the information would be placed in an Unfavorable Information File (UIF). On 15 Nov 12, the applicant acknowledged he had been informed regarding the UIF. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. NJP is authorized by Article 15, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 815), and governed by the Manual for Courts-Martial (Part V) and AFI 51-202, Nonjudicial Punishment. This procedure permits commanders to dispose of certain offenses without trial by court- martial unless the service member objects. Service members first must be notified by their commanders of the nature of the charged offenses, the evidence supporting the offenses, and the commander’s intent to impose the punishment. The member may consult with a defense counsel to determine whether to accept the NJP or demand trial by court-martial. Accepting the proceedings is simply a choice of forum; it is not an admission of guilt. NJP is also not, when imposed, a criminal conviction. A member accepting Article 15 proceedings may submit written matters to, and have a hearing with, the commander imposing the punishment. The member may have a spokesperson at the hearing, may request that witnesses appear and testify, and may present evidence. The commander must consider any information offered by the member and must be convinced by reliable evidence that the member committed the offenses before imposing punishment. Members who wish to contest their commander’s determination or the severity of the punishment imposed may appeal to the next higher commander. The appeal authority may deny the appeal altogether if the appeal authority agrees with the action taken or may remove or modify the Article 15 if he or she disagrees in whole or in part with the action. That said, a commander considering a case for disposition under Article 15 exercises largely unfettered discretion in evaluating the case, both as to whether punishment is warranted and, if so, the nature and extent of punishment. The exercise of that discretion should generally not be reversed or otherwise changed on appeal or by the Board absent good cause. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 15 May 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 was timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material 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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00797 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Feb 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 18 Apr 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 May 14.