RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-03296

	COUNSEL:  NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Article 15 he received on 27 Jun 17, be set aside or in the alternative the punishment he received in conjunction with the Article 15 be reconsidered.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The punishment he received was harsh and unjust for the offense committed.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 10 May 05.

On 28 Nov 16, the applicant’s commander imposed punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for one specification of wrongful use of a Schedule IV controlled substance in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ.  The applicant consulted with a legal counsel, waived his right to court-martial, accepted NJP proceedings, and provided a written statement.  His commander, after considering all the matters presented found the applicant committed the alleged offense and imposed a reprimand, suspended punishment of reduction in grade from staff sergeant to senior airman until 7 Jun 17, after which time it would be remitted unless sooner vacated.  The commander also imposed a punishment of forfeiture of $1,241.00 pay per month for 2 months, but suspended the portion of forfeitures in excess of $1,241 pay per month for one month through 7 Jun 17, after which time it would be remitted unless sooner vacated, and 30 days extra duty. The applicant appealed, but the appeal was denied on 21 Dec 16.  The Legal reviews conducted on 21 Dec 16 and 3 Jan 17 found the NJP to be legally sufficient. 

On 23 Mar 17, the applicant’s commander vacated the suspended portion of his punishment from a prior Article 15 for failure to go in violation of Article 86, UCMJ and for failure to obey a lawful order in violation of Article 92, UCMJ.  The applicant consulted legal counsel and provided a written statement.  The commander found applicant violated the condition of the suspension, and vacated the suspended punishment of $1,241.00 pay, but not the reduction in rank. 

On 14 Jun 17, the applicant’s commander imposed punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for one specification of dereliction of duty in violation of Article 92, UCMJ.  The applicant failed to complete job qualification training.  The applicant consulted legal counsel, waived his right to a court-martial, accepted NJP, and elected to submit written statement.  The commander found the applicant committed the alleged offenses, and imposed a punishment of reduction in grade from staff sergeant to senior airman, a reprimand, and a suspended punishment of forfeiture of $1267.00 pay for two months until 21 Dec 17, after which time it would be remitted unless sooner vacated. The applicant appealed, but the appeal was denied on 29 Jun 17.  Legal reviews were conducted on 30 Jun 17 and 24 Jul 18 and found the NJP to be legally sufficient.

On 20 Oct 17, the applicant was furnished a honorable discharge.  He was credited with 12 years, 5 months and 11 days of active duty service.

 For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ALOA/JAJM recommends denying the application. The applicant during his military career received punishment under Article 15 for wrongful use of a controlled substance and dereliction of duty.  The applicant appealed the nonjudicial punishments (NJP) and his appeals were denied.  Legal reviews were conducted and the NJPs were found to be legally sufficient.  However, the applicant’s commander vacated the portion of the punishment of forfeiture for a prior Article 15.

Commanders considering a case for disposition under Article 15 exercises discretion in evaluating a case, both as to whether punishment is warranted and, if so, the nature and extent of the punishment. The exercise of that discretion should generally not be reversed or otherwise changed on appeal by the Board absent good cause. Before deciding to impose NJP, the commander would have been aware that certain nonpunitive disciplinary measures, including counseling and reprimands, were available. The commander, at the time of the NJP action, had the best opportunity to evaluate the evidence and to determine what action would best maintain good order and discipline and promote a positive behavior change in the applicant. The commander's ultimate decision to impose NJP was based on the evidence of the case and his punishment decisions were well with the limits of his authority and discretion.

The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 15 May 18 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFLOA/JAJM and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

The application was adjudicated without a personal appearance.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2017-03296 in Executive Session on 14 Jun 18:

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 12 Jul 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 2 May 18.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 15 May 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.