RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00537 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His $10,000 debt with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) be reversed and terminated. 2. He be compensated with $1,626.56 for lost leave and fuel costs associated with his “fraudulent” permanent change of station (PCS). 3. His characterization of service be restored to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He believes the government committed fraud as he was unlawfully PCS’d and harassed by personnel in a command he did not even know. Continuous harassment and tactics were used to push him into a courtroom and ask for a bad conduct discharge. Unlawful travel policies contributed to his situation. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his DD Forms 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; DFAS Account Statement; responses to a Congressional Inquiries; PCS Orders; personnel briefs; leave record; electronic communication; and Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs). The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served on active duty from 1 June 1998 through 5 February 2010. He served as a Air Transportation Craftsman and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5). According to Special Court-Martial Order Number 19, dated 7 April 2008, the applicant was charged with two specifications of larceny, in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); two specifications of making false statements, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ; and one specification of failure to obey a lawful order to report to his supervisor and one specification of failure to obey a lawful general regulation, both in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, the applicant pled guilty to the charges and all specifications except for the failure to obey a lawful order to report to his supervisor. He was sentenced in accordance with his pleas by a military judge to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for nine months, reduction to the grade of airman basic (E-1), and a fine of $10,000 with the provision that he would serve an additional three months confinement if he did not pay the fine. On 31 March 2008, the convening authority, in accordance with his obligation under the pretrial agreement, approved only so much of the sentence as called for a bad conduct discharge, a fine of $10,000, and reduction to airman basic. The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence on 26 November 2008. The applicant petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, but the petition was denied on 21 April 2009, making the findings and sentence in his case final and conclusive under the UCMJ. As a result, the applicant’s discharge was ordered to be executed on 18 May 2009. The applicant was discharged effective 5 February 2010 with a bad conduct discharge and a narrative reason for separation as court- martial (other). He served 11 years, 9 months, and 2 days on active duty. The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s military service record, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, D, and E. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states upgrading the applicant’s bad conduct discharge is not appropriate. While clemency may be granted under Title 10, USC, Section 1552(f)(2), the applicant provides very little justification for his request and clemency is not warranted. The applicant pled guilty to the charges and all but one of the specifications. At trial he seemingly took responsibility for his actions. He went into detail with the military judge at trial and described how he felt he was guilty of those offenses. In addition, during his unsworn statement, the applicant stated “I know I have done a lot of things that are wrong.” However, in his application he does not include any documentation to support the idea that he continued to take responsibility for his own actions. Instead, his unsupported claims attempt to shift blame to the government. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. DFAS-IN recommends denial. DFAS-IN states the applicant was separated from the Air Force on 5 February 2010 due to a court- martial conviction. Fines were levied based on the court- martial. Without an Appellate Review Board overturning the court-martial decision, there is no standing to change either the discharge or the imposed fine. The complete DFAS-IN evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial in regard to the applicant’s request for compensation for leave associated with his PCS move. DPSIM states the applicant was notified of reassignment from McClellan Air Force Base (AFB), California (CA), to Travis AFB, CA, in September 2007. He commuted 200 miles roundtrip per day using as much leave (45 days at different intervals) as possible to avoid the cost of $35 per day in fuel costs from his home in Wheatland, CA, to Travis AFB, CA. The supported documentation does not show where the applicant was forced to take 45 days leave against his will; however, it does indicate he decided not to relocate in association to his PCS; therefore, he accepted the consequences associated with his decision. The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 24 June 2011 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ 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 took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-00537 in Executive Session on 24 January 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-00537: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Jan 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 25 Apr 11. Exhibit D. Letter, DFAS-IN, dated 26 Apr 11, w/atch. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 7 Jun 11. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jun 11. Panel Chair