RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04761 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Both his non-judicial punishments (NJP) he received under Article 15 for violating Article 134 of the UCMJ and his referral enlisted performance report (EPR) be removed from his record. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He did not commit any crime and could not have knowingly concealed a stolen vehicle when he did not have any knowledge that the car he purchased was stolen. He is a productive member in his organization and community. The Air Force has invested considerable time and resources into his training and he is an Air Force asset with proven mission value. In support of his request, the applicant provides portions of the NJP package, a copy of the report of investigation, various vehicle transaction documents, previous EPRs, and his discharge board proceedings. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the regular Air Force on 17 Apr 03 after serving with the Army National Guard of Georgia. On 24 Mar 11, the Louisiana’s 26th Judicial District Judge issued a warrant for the applicant’s arrest for violation of the state’s Revised Statute, 14.73.5, Computer Fraud. He was charged with knowingly using the identity of a salvaged vehicle to conceal the identity of a stolen vehicle, and then advertising it for sale to an unwitting person through an online classified advertisement computer system. On 31 Mar 11, he was arrested by Office of Special Investigation agents. On 19 Apr 11, he was issued a letter of reprimand by his commander. On 10 Jan 12, he was offered a record of nonjudicial punishment proceedings by his commander for violation of the UCMJ, Article 134 for concealing a stolen vehicle. On 18 Jan 12, the commander determined he committed the offense and his NJP consisted of reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay, 45 days of extra duty, and a reprimand. On 20 Jan 12, he appealed the commander’s action. On 24 Jan 12, the appellate authority denied his appeal and had the action placed in the applicant’s Unfavorable Information File (UIF). On 26 Jan 12, the record was found legally sufficient by the servicing staff judge advocate. On 17 Feb 12, the applicant was notified of a referral EPR. On 3 Apr 12, his commander notified the applicant he was being recommended for discharge for commission of a serious offense. On 6 June 12, the administrative discharge board recommended he be retained in the Air Force. On 13 Jul 12, the 19 AW/JA found the discharge board findings and recommendations legally sufficient. 0n 31 Jul 12, the 19 AW/CC approved the board’s finding and recommendations and directed he be retained. On 30 Jun 15, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 14 years, 02 months, and 15 days of active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice to reverse or otherwise change the commander’s decision with respect to NJP. NJP is authorized by Article 15, UCMJ and governed by the Manual for Courts-Martial and AFI 51-202, Nonjudicial Punishment. All legal requirements and due process were met in this case. A commander considering a case for disposition under NJP 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 evidence supporting the NJP supports a finding applicant knew the car was stolen and the punishment decision was well within the limits of the commander’s authority and discretion. The NJP action was fitting, appropriate, and just. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denying the applicant’s request to void the contested EPR as there is no compelling evidence to show that the report was unjust or inaccurate at the time it was written. The applicant provided no evidence to show that the referral comment on the EPR was inaccurate of unjust. DPSID contends that the inclusion of the referral comment was appropriate and within the evaluator’s authority to document given the incident and, based upon the presumed sufficiency of the Article 15, DPSID concluded that its mention on the contested report was proper and in accordance with applicable policies and procedures. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DP3SP, after review of the AFLOA/JAJM and AFPC/DPSID advisories, and based on their analysis and recommendations, does not recommend a correction to the applicant’s grade or promotion eligibility. A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3SP evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 Dec 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). 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 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 of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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 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 members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04761 in Executive Session on 29 Jan 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Nov 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 15 Jan 15. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 13 Oct 15. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 12 Nov 15. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Dec 15. 1 2