RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-04893

	COUNSEL:  NONE 

	HEARING:  YES

APPLICANT’S REQUEST:  Her financial debt be cancelled, her discharge be rescinded, and she be reinstated in the Air National Guard (ANG).  

APPLICANT’S CONTENTION:  After she voluntarily transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), her commander recommended her discharge, and $25,000 or her special pay bonus was recouped.  She is contesting the basis of the debt.  She was the victim of reprisal in a hostile work environment during the period of time she served in the Alaska ANG, 176 Medical Group; she was prevented her from transferring to another ANG unit; and, after transferring to the IRR, she was involuntarily discharged based upon the action taken by her former ANG unit.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:  

On 30 Jan 10, the applicant took her Oath of Office in the rank of major at Kulis ANG Base, Anchorage, Alaska. 

On 17 Aug 11, the applicant was discharged from the Alaska ANG, intending to transfer to the California ANG.  

According to the documentation submitted by the applicant, on 24 May 12, she submitted a written request to voluntarily separate from the AK ANG and transfer to the (IRR).  

Under Special Order P-008492, dated 24 Jul 12, the applicant was honorably discharged from the AK ANG, effective 21 Jul 12, and transferred to the AFRES (IRR).  

Under Reserve Order BA-0037, dated 29 Oct 12, the applicant was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the Reserve of the Air Force, with a date of rank of 17 Jun 12.  The promotion order stipulates the promotion would be void if she were to be discharged. 

According to the documentation submitted by the applicant, on 31 Oct 12, the ARPC/CC notified the applicant he was initiating action to determine if she should be discharged from the AF Reserve, and recommended recoupment of the $25,000 special pay bonus she received on 17 Aug 10 pursuant to her 12 Aug 09 contract, Air National Guard Special Pay for Selected Reserve Healthcare Professionals in Critically Short Wartime Specialties.  The applicant was notified of her right to legal counsel and to submit statements on her own behalf. 
The reasons for taking this action were:  

1.  Her 5 Sep 12 conviction for driving under the influence of liquor.
2.  Her failure to complete her annual fitness test since 16 Aug 09.
3.  Her failure to attend Reserve Component Officer Training within one year of her appointment. 
4.  Her failure to become a credentialed provider with the 176MDG by completing a credentials application.  

On 8 Nov 12, the Deputy Adjutant General, Alaska ANG, directed a Commander-Directed Investigation (CDI) into the command climate of the 176 Medical Group based upon complaints from two individuals.  One of the complainants was the applicant.  The investigating officer determined all of the allegations brought by the applicant were UNSUBSTANTIATED. 

On 19 Apr 13, on behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force, the Director of the Air Force Review Boards Agency (AFRBA), directed the applicant be discharged with a general service characterization, and she reimburse the United States Government for the second installment ($25,000) of her Critically Short Wartime Specialty Bonus.  

On 26 Jul 13, the IG determined the allegation of reprisal under Title 10 USC § 1034 is not warranted and the allegation of reprisal should be dismissed.  Additionally, there is no evidence of abuse of authority.  The unfavorable personnel actions experience by the applicant occurred for valid reasons other than reprisal, and were within the authority of the responsible management officials (RMOs). 

Under Reserve Order Number CL-041, dated 24 Jun 13, the applicant was furnished a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge, effective 19 Apr 13.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C, D, and E.

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:  

1.  DFAS recommends denying the application.  The applicant was directed to be separated for Unsatisfactory Participation, and The Secretary of the Air Force did not excuse any indebtedness incurred.  An expense summary reveals $50,000 was expended on her behalf in Critically Short Wartime Specialty Bonus monies, and $25,000 of bonus monies was unearned.  Therefore, recoupment action was initiated for $25,000.  Unless there is a change in the justification of discharge, the debt is valid.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

2.  NGB/A1P recommends denying the application.  The applicant was convicted of a DUI which eventually led to her being separated with a General discharge.  A letter from The Adjutant General, Alaska ANG to Senator Murkowski indicates a Command Directed Inquiry (CDI) was completed in Jan 13, but the CDI did not substantiate any of her allegations.  There is no evidence to support the applicant’s claim.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

3.  SAF/MRBP recommends denying the application.  An investigating officer was appointed to determine whether or not the applicant’s contested debt was legitimate.  He found the respondent had served only eight active duty days during the year in question.  He noted that even if faced with bureaucratic obstacles, she was not prevented from performing duty.  Rather, she chose to leave the country and work with Doctors Without Borders instead of attending drill.  The basis for recoupment was failure to attend drill, not the failure to get credentialed, attend RCOT, or take the fitness test.  Under Title 37 United States Code (USC) § 303a(e) a person who receives a bonus conditioned upon the fulfillment of specific service requirements must repay to the United States any unearned portion of that benefit if he or she fails to satisfy service requirements.  Recommend disapproval.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:  The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 5 Mar 18 for comment (Exhibit F), but has received no response.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES:

1.  The application was timely filed.  

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.  

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the offices of primary responsibility (OPRs) and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

4.  The applicant alleges she was the victim of a reprisal.  On 8 Nov 12, the Deputy Adjutant General, Alaska ANG, directed a Commander-Directed Investigation (CDI) into the command climate of the 176 Medical Group based, in part, upon her complaint.  The investigating officer determined all of the allegations brought by the applicant were unsubstantiated.  On 26 Jul 13, the IG determined the allegation of reprisal under Title 10 USC § 1034 was not warranted and the allegation of reprisal was dismissed.  We reviewed the complete evidence of record to reach our own independent determination of whether reprisal occurred, and found no evidence of reprisal.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we do not find the applicant has been the victim of reprisal pursuant to Title 10, U.S.C. Section 1034.

5.  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 our understanding of the issues involved.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS:  The APPLICANT be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-04893 in Executive Session on 11 Apr 18.

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record as recommended.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A: Applicant’s application, DD Form 149, dated 21 Oct 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B: Documentary evidence, including excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C: Advisory opinion, DFAS, undated.
Exhibit D: Advisory opinion, NGB/A1P, dated 23 Jan 14.
Exhibit E: Advisory opinion, SAF/MRBP, dated 24 Feb 14
Exhibit F: Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBR to applicant, dated 5 Mar 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-04893 as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.
1 2