Justice Files: November 2017

  • Published
  • By Fairchild Air Force Base Legal Office

During the month of November 2017, three Airmen received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, three Airmen were involuntarily separated and one Airman was administratively demoted. Commanders used the following actions as means of punishment, rehabilitation and maintaining good order and discipline.

NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15)

92nd Aircraft Maintenance Squadron

A senior airman received an Article 15 for dereliction of duty, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. Specifically, this member failed to provide his supervision with his leave destination and failed to report for duty on time after being recalled from that leave.  Additionally, he wrongfully used Tetrahydrocannabinol, also known as THC, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. The member’s punishment consisted of a reduction to the rank of airman, with reduction below airman first class suspended, suspended forfeiture of $400pay and a reprimand. When a punishment is suspended, it means that if the member refrains from committing further violations for six months, the punishment will not go into effect.

92nd Logistics Readiness Squadron

An airman received an Article 15 for failing to go to a mandatory physical training session on time, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. This member had previously been given derogatory paperwork on multiple occasions for the same type of offense. This member’s punishment consisted of a suspended reduction to the rank of airman basic, 30 days of extra duty, and a reprimand.

92nd Medical Support Squadron

A Senior Airman received an Article 15 for driving under the influence of alcohol, in violation of Article 111, UCMJ. This member’s punishment consisted of a suspended reduction to the rank of airman first class, forfeiture of $1,062 pay per month for two months and a reprimand.

INVOLUNTARY SEPARATION ACTIONS

92nd Aerospace Medicine Squadron

An airman first class was separated for misconduct: minor disciplinary infractions. This Airman was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for failure to obey an order as well as having received six letters of reprimand and two letters of counseling for various disciplinary violations.  The separation authority, 92nd Air Refueling Wing commander, directed this member’s separation with an “Under Honorable Conditions” (General) discharge. Furthermore, as a result of his discharge characterization in conjunction with being a first-term Airman, all G.I. Bill education benefits were forfeited.


92nd Aircraft Maintenance Squadron

An airman first class was separated for unsatisfactory performance: failure to meet minimum fitness standards by receiving four fitness failures in a 24-month period.  Throughout this period, this member received rehabilitative measures in the form of unit directed fitness activities, diet and exercise education and formal counseling on the importance of meeting fitness standards. Nonetheless, these rehabilitative efforts taken by the unit proved unsuccessful and this member was discharged from the Air Force.

92d Civil Engineer Squadron

An airman first class was separated for misconduct: minor disciplinary infractions.  This Airman received three letters of reprimand and two letters or counseling for failing to report to work on time and dereliction of duty. The separation authority, 92nd ARW commander, directed this member’s separation with a “General” discharge. Furthermore, as a result of his discharge characterization in conjunction with being a first-term Airman, all G.I. Bill education benefits were forfeited.

DEMOTION ACTIONS

A staff sergeant was demoted in rank for his failure to fulfill noncommissioned officer (NCO) responsibilities. Specifically, this member was arrested by civilian authorities for driving under the influence of alcohol. Due to the fact the county prosecutors retained jurisdiction of the offense, Air Force policy prohibited the unit commander from administering judicial or nonjudicial punishment action. However, this prohibition does not preclude administrative actions, to include administrative demotion. As such, the unit commander recommended this NCO be demoted in rank. The demotion authority (group commander) found demotion action to be appropriate and demoted him to the rank of senior airman.