FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE, Wash. --
During the month of January 2017, two Fairchild Airmen were convicted by General Court-Martial, one Airman was convicted by Special Court-Martial, six Airmen received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, three Airmen were involuntarily separated, and one was administratively demoted. Commanders used the following actions as means of punishment, rehabilitation, and maintaining good order and discipline.
GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL
92nd Logistics Readiness Squadron
An airman first class was convicted by a general court-martial for one charge and one specification of larceny. Specifically, this member made a false insurance claim for his vehicle of a value of $30,644.25, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. This member’s punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of airman basic, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 4 months and a bad conduct discharge.
92nd Air Refueling Squadron
A master sergeant was convicted by a general court-martial for one charge and one specification of sexual harassment, in violation of Article 93, UCMJ, and one charge and two specifications of dereliction of duty, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. Specifically, this member engaged in unprofessional relationships with other members in the same unit. This member’s punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of staff sergeant and a reprimand.
SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL
92nd Force Support Squadron
An Airman was convicted by special court martial for one charge and three specifications of wrongful use and/or distribution of marijuana, codeine and oxycodone, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. This member’s punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of airman basic, hard labor for three months, and confinement for 75 days.
NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (Articles 15)
92nd Aircraft Maintenance Squadron
A staff sergeant received an Article 15 for dereliction of duty, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. Specifically, this member negligently failed to complete an external prestart inspection of a KC-135. This negligence resulted in damage to the aircraft engines when the fabric covers were ingested due to not being properly removed. This member’s punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of airman first class, with reduction below senior airman suspended and a reprimand.
An Airman received an Article 15 for dereliction of duty, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. Specifically, during an engine run of a KC-135, this member negligently failed to tell the engine run supervisor that the engine area was not clear. This member also failed to visually confirm that the engine fans were rotating, resulting in damage to the aircraft engines when the fabric covers were ingested due to not being properly removed. This member’s punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of airman basic and a reprimand.
92d Security Forces Squadron
A senior airman received an Article 15 for dereliction of duty on several occasions, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. Specifically, this member operated government vehicles without a valid driver’s license. This member’s punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of Airman, with reduction below the grade of Airman First Class suspended, forfeiture of $332 pay per month for two months and a reprimand.
A senior airman received an Article 15 for adultery and false official statement in violation of Article 134 and 107, UCMJ. This member’s punishment consisted of reduction to airman with reduction below the grade of airman basic suspended, forfeiture of $783 pay, 45 days of extra duty and a reprimand.
92nd Logistics Readiness Squadron
An airman first class received an Article 15 for wrongful use of marijuana and wrongful possession of marijuana, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. This member’s punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of airman basic with reduction below the grade of airman suspended, 30 days of extra duty and a reprimand.
A staff sergeant received an Article 15 for failure to go and dereliction of duty, in violation of Article 86 and 92, UCMJ. Specifically, this member failed to go to a mandatory fitness class and negligently failed to update his Government Travel Card resulting in his inability to secure travel for his deployment. This member’s punishment consisted of a suspended reduction to the grade of senior airman and a reprimand.
INVOLUNTARY SEPARATION ACTIONS
93rd Air Refueling Squadron
A senior airman was separated for unsatisfactory performance: failure to meet minimum fitness standards by receiving four fitness failures in a 24-month period. Throughout this period, the member received rehabilitative measures in the form of formal counseling, unit directed fitness activities, diet/exercise education and his promotion selection to Staff Sergeant was terminated. However, these efforts taken by the unit proved unsuccessful and 92nd Air Refueling Wing commander directed his separation with an Honorable discharge.
92nd Operations Support Squadron
An airman first class was separated for misconduct: minor disciplinary infractions. Over the course of his enlistment, this Airman received an Article 15, a vacation of his Article 15 punishment, a letter of reprimand and five letters of counseling; all for various disciplinary infractions. As such, the separation authority, 92nd ARW/CC, directed this member’s separation with an Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge. Furthermore, as a result of this discharge characterization and being a first-term Airman, all G.I. Bill education benefits were forfeited.
92nd Security Forces Squadron
An Airman was separated for misconduct: a pattern of misconduct, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. Specifically, this Airman engaged in multiple unprofessional relationships while deployed and here at Fairchild AFB. These incidents ultimately led to her receiving a letter of reprimand and an Article 15. Accordingly, the separation authority, 92 ARW/CC, directed this member’s separation with a General discharge.
DEMOTION ACTION
92nd Aircraft Maintenance Squadron
A technical sergeant was demoted to the rank of staff sergeant for his failure to fulfill noncommissioned officer 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, 92nd Maintenance Group commander, found demotion action to be appropriate and demoted him to the rank of staff sergeant.