RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00249 INDEX CODE: 131.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His rank of airman first class (A1C) be reinstated with 19 months of time in grade from airman basic. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He voluntarily extended his confinement time in order to complete the Return to Duty program (RTDP). Since his release, he has spent time taking every opportunity to better himself and those around him. He is not asking for back pay and realizes that reduced pay was a consequence of his offense. He is asking to have his rank match his skill-level. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of character reference letters, a listing of accomplishments, course completion test scores, a Letter of Appreciation, and certificates. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 14 Mar 08, the applicant was found guilty, by a General Court-Martial of, on divers occasions, wrongfully using and distributing methylenedioxymethamphetamine, commonly known as ecstasy. He was sentenced to confinement for 10 months, reduction in rank from airman first class to airman basic, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. On 23 Jul 08, the Clemency and Parole (C&P) Board approved the applicant’s request for entry into the RTDP, effective as soon as possible. However, prior to his entry into the program, the applicant met a Discipline and Adjustment Board and received 14 days of loss of privileges. On 8 Aug 08, after a review of the incident, the C&P Board again approved him for the RTDP. The applicant successfully completed and graduated the RTDP on 13 Jan 09, and on 23 Jan 09, the C&P Board recommended his reinstatement back onto active duty. He was reinstated onto active duty and is presently serving in the grade of airman, with a date of rank of 19 Jan 10. His current date of separation is 24 Aug 13. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states that in accordance with the RTDP, candidates are not entitled, by virtue of successful completion of the program, to be returned to the grade they held before the court-martial. The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states that although the applicant completed the RTDP, no error or injustice occurred in his case. The complete HQ AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He states the recommendations of denial by both HQ AFPC/DPSOE and AFLOA/JAJM were made based on incorrect facts and the purpose of their recommendations has been undermined therefore making the recommendations void. The convening authority did not order him to the RTDP; he voluntarily applied and was approved by the C&P Board. Granted the RTDP does not offer any assurances of return to duty, let alone rank upon returning to duty. However, it is important to consider the intent of the program. The USAF invests thousands of dollars, hours, and effort in an attempt to rehabilitate candidates of the program for the purpose of resuming a productive role within the USAF. At a time of personnel reduction in the military, it is vital that each member be entitled to achieve their highest earned level of performance and this in turn, further benefits the USAF. He questions the purpose of his rank being held back and states it is not his intent to argue the validity of the proceedings of his trial. He has performed well beyond the minimum requirements and expectations for his assigned position. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice. We note the applicant’s disagreement with the advisory opinions prepared by AFLOA/JAJM and HQ AFPC/DPSOE and his assertion the opinions should be declared void. However, we disagree with his view of the opinions and note that the issue before us is whether the applicant should be restored to the grade of airman first class with 19 months time in grade from airman basic. Notwithstanding how the applicant may have come to participate in the RTDP, he asserts that because of his performance in the program and his subsequent accomplishments and performance, it is an injustice to both he and the Air Force not to restore his grade. Again, we disagree. We believe the intent of the program has been met with the opportunities he has been provided. It is interesting to note the applicant’s statement that he is not seeking back pay if his grade is restored because he recognizes that “reduced pay is a consequence of my offense….” In our view the grade he now holds is also a consequence of his offense and pay is linked to that grade. While his skill-level may exceed that of others in his grade, his situation is not any different from others who may have been reduced in grade as a consequence of their misconduct. As such, in our view, he has not been the victim of an error or injustice and should only be provided opportunity for advance promotion available to other airmen of his grade. Therefore, in view of the above, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 Docket Number BC-2010-00249 in Executive Session on 3 August 2010, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Jan 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 4 Mar 10. Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOE, dated 18 Mar 10. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Apr 10. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 19 May 10.