RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01080 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Block 1b of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to reflect his pay grade as E-5 (Staff Sergeant/SSgt). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should not have been reduced in rank to Senior Airman (SrA/E-4) because the Discharge Review Board (DRB) found he did not dishonorably fail to pay his debt, for which he received an Article 15. In addition, on 29 Nov 11, he made arrangements to pay the amount due by 5 Dec 11. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 7 Sep 04. On 21 Nov 11, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant he was considering punishing him through non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The reason for this action was the applicant dishonorably failed to pay a debt, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. On 28 Nov 11, the applicant acknowledged he had consulted with an attorney, waived his right to a court-martial and accepted NJP, and submitted a written presentation on his own behalf. On 1 Dec 11, the applicant’s commander found he had committed the alleged offense and punished him by reducing his grade to SrA. The applicant did not appeal his commander’s decision. On 7 May 12, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge in the grade of SrA, with a narrative reason for separation of “Misconduct (minor infractions),” and was credited with seven years, eight months, and one day of total active service. According to the documentation submitted by the applicant, on 27 Mar 12, a DRB determined he did not “dishonorably” fail to pay the debt in question, and recommended he be separated with an honorable discharge. However, the DRB did find he engaged in five other negative activities and recommended he not be offered probation or rehabilitation. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. NJP is authorized by Article 15 of the UCMJ and permits commanders to dispose of certain offenses without trial by court-martial unless the service member objects. Service members must first 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. During the NJP process, the applicant had the opportunity to make his argument to his commander and to the appellate authority on why the NJP should not stand. However, he chose not to appeal the decision. The commander was in the best position to hear such factual arguments. Punishment decisions are within the discretion of the commander imposing punishment. We see no error or injustice that would warrant reversing the commander’s decision on upholding the NJP. The findings of the discharge board are an entirely different proceeding with a different standard of proof, and have no bearing on the validity of the NJP. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE does not make a recommendation, simply provides guidance for the directive in the event the Board grant’s the applicant’s request. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 6 Jul 15, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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 AFLOA/JAJM 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 members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01080 in Executive Session on 3 Nov 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Mar 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 12 May 15. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 21 May 15. Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Jul 15.