ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03463-3

XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Board reconsider his request that his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge be changed to reflect he completed his military service, and he receive full separation pay.  Additionally, he requests completion of a Command Directed Evaluation Performance Report (EPR), which was not accomplished.   

RESUME OF THE CASE:

On 17 Jun 14, the Board considered and denied a request for correction of military records submitted by the applicant, finding that the applicant had provided insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to justify relief.  For an accounting of the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision, see the AFBCMR Letter and Record of Proceedings at Exhibit H.

On 12 Mar 16, AFBCMR examined his reconsideration request and determined it did not meet the criteria for reconsideration by the Board as it contained essentially a similar request which was previously considered and denied, and he did not provide new relevant evidence. (Exhibit I).

On 15 Jul 16, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve.  
 
On 7 Dec 16, the applicant requested reconsideration of his request to change his DD Form 214 to reflect he completed his military service, and he receive full separation pay.  Additionally, he requests completion of a Command Directed Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), which was not accomplished.  He again contends his separation was unjust, and several separation actions taken were not in accordance with Air Force guidance/instructions.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit J.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denying the application regarding aspects related to the applicant’s discharge from the Air Force, and his request for full separation pay.  His SPD code and corresponding narrative reason for separation are correct as indicated on his DD Form 214.  Furthermore, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  SECAF Memorandum regarding enlisted DOS Rollback, 31 Jan 13, states “airmen with six or more years of active duty service and less than twenty years of active service not serving in their initial enlistment are authorized one-half rate separation pay contingent upon agreeing to serve in the Individual Ready Reserves for a period of not less than three years”.  Therefore, if the applicant agreed to fulfill the IRR commitment, he was authorized half separation pay.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit L.

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denying the applicant’s request for a change of RE code.  On 13 Mar 13, his commander non-selected him for reenlistment on an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) Consideration.  He acknowledged non-selection 13 Mar 13 and rendered his intent to appeal the decision on 14 Mar 13.  His appeal was denied on 23 Apr 13 and he acknowledged the denial on 29 Apr 13.  He received a RE code 2X based on being denied reenlistment.  The applicant’s commander was authorized and acting within appropriate guidance when processing applicant’s non-selection for reenlistment.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit M.

AFPC/DP2SPE recommends partially granting the application, regarding completion of a Command Directed Evaluation Performance Report (EPR).  The applicant contends the commander who administered his control roster, UIF, and LOR directed an evaluation to be accomplished as reflected on Section IV of the AF Form 1058, Unfavorable Information File Action.  IAW AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, if the member requires an EPR because of placement on the control roster according to AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information File (UIF) Program, and the period of supervision has been at least 60 calendar days, the reason for the evaluation is Directed By Commander (DBC).  Additionally, under Note 7, the close-out of the evaluation is the day before the date of placement on the control roster which was dated 29 Nov 12. Lastly, after reviewing the member's AF IMT 1058 (Unfavorable Information File Action) section IV, the commander marked he intended to accomplish a report.  Consequently, making this DBC EPR mandatory.  IAW AFI 36-2406, if the report cannot be located or cannot be re-accomplished, since the applicant has separated, they would prepare the AF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation (LOE), for the period of 2 Sep 12 through 28 Nov 12, place it in the applicant's record stating, "No evaluation available for the period 2 Sep 12 through 28 Nov 12 for administrative reasons which were not the fault of the member.  The system does not reflect an overall rating."  The complete advisory is at Exhibit N.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 2 Jul 18 for comment (Exhibit O), and the applicant replied on 1 Aug 18.  In his response, the applicant contended unjust actions were taken against him and violations of Air Force guidance led to his separation.  He reiterates arguments regarding the Control Roster, Article 15, and alleges his commander’s actions pertaining to his involuntary separation were arbitrary (he picked and chose actions to take).  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit P.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/JA did not provide a recommendation; however, they opined that a review of the case file did not reveal an error or injustice.  Their advisory focused on addressing the applicant’s 1 Aug 18 rebuttal.  They discussed in detail, refuting the applicant’s contentions that violations of Air Force guidance and unjust actions taken by his commander, resulted in his involuntary separation.  They opined that while being on the Control Roster made the applicant eligible for the 2013 Rollback, it was the affirmative action taken by his commander to conduct an early SRP decision that placed him in the program and accelerated his separation.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit Q.     

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the additional Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 20 Aug 18 for comment (Exhibit R), and the applicant replied on 18 Sep 18.  In his response he refutes AFPC/JA’s advisory, by reiterating the disciplinary actions (UIF, LOR, Control Roster, denial of leave) and separation actions, were unjust and/or not in accordance with Air Force guidance/instructions.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit S.  

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant has presented evidence sufficient to demonstrate an error or injustice regarding part, but not all, of his request.  In particular, the applicant has provided an AF IMT 1058, Unfavorable Information File Action, dated 19 Nov 12, that his commander marked he intended to accomplish an EPR.  We are in agreement with AFPC/DP2SPE, that since the applicant has since separated, an AF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation (LOE), for the period of 2 Sep 12 through 28 Nov 12, should be accomplished.  However, for the remainder of the applicant’s request, the evidence presented did not demonstrate an error or injustice, and the Board therefore finds no basis to recommend granting that portion of the applicant’s request.  Therefore, the Board recommends the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show AF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation (LOE), for the period 2 September 2012 through 28 November 2012, be placed in the applicant’s record which states, “no evaluation available for the period 2 September 2012 through 29 November 2012 for administrative reasons which were not the fault of the member.  The system does not reflect an overall rating.”  

However, regarding the remainder of the applicant’s request, the Board recommends the applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice and the application could 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-2013-03463-3 in Executive Session on 9 Oct 18:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit H:	Record of Proceedings, w/ Exhibits A-G, dated 17 Jun 14.
Exhibit I:	Letter, Denial of Reconsideration, AFBCMR to applicant, dated 12 Mar 16.
Exhibit J:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 7 Dec 16.
Exhibit K:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit L:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 20 Sep 17. 
Exhibit M:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 16 Oct 17.
Exhibit N:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SPE, dated 22 Jan 18.
Exhibit O:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 2 Jul 18.
Exhibit P:	Applicant’s response, dated 1 Aug 18.
Exhibit Q:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/JA, dated 16 Aug 18.
Exhibit R:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 20 Aug 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.
1 2