RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02921

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the 5-skill level for Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 3D153, RF Transmission Journeyman.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In Jun 10, while serving as a Technician (civilian status), he was injured and was subsequently placed in Training Status Code (TSC) P (Profile), effective in Apr 2011.

He completed all of his 5-skill level requirements, passed his Career Development Course (CDC) and was signed off.

His upgrade training consisted of Computer based training, book-work and non-physical tasks.

His commander said and documented that “Training and everything else is on hold.”  Facing a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), his commander refused to place him back in TSC – U (Upgrade) prior to being medically retired, which caused his Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) degree to be withheld.

He believes his commander’s action was an act of reprisal because he had previously filed an informal complaint against a major who wanted him to violate Air Force regulations and instructions.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

In accordance with AF Form 2096, Classification/On-the-Job Training Action, dated 18 Nov 12, the applicant was placed into TSC P due to injury caused by work related activity.

On 8 Aug 13, the applicant was honorably discharged from the New Jersey Air National Guard (NJANG) and transferred to the Air Force Reserve with a reason for separation of physical disqualification.  He was credited with 16 years of total service for pay and 15 years of service for retired pay.

On 9 Aug 13, the applicant was relieved of his current assignment and placed on the USAF Reserve Retired List for 15 to < 20 satisfactory service – medical disqualification, eligible for retired pay except for attainment of eligibility age, in the grade of staff sergeant.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1D recommends denial indicating that In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-2201, Air Force Training Program, paragraph 4.1.2.2., personnel must be recommended by their supervisor and approved by their commander for the award of the 5-skill level.  While many of the mandatory requirements listed in the Career Field Education and Training Plan (CFETP) were completed the placement of the applicant into TSC P prevented meeting all requirements needed for upgrade to the 5-skill level.  

In addition, A1D notes the applicant was injured and placed in TSC P effective 6 Apr 11 and was discharged before being returned to TSC F which prevented the member from completing his up-grade training (UGT) and subsequent award of a 5-skill level.

A complete copy of the A1D evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes the point made by the OPR and argues that he completed all of his personal mandatory requirements.  

Although being in status code P, which would normally preclude him from taking part in any training, he attended this training (in Military Technician status) with his commander and his senior leadership present, as they were the persons who instructed him to do so.  Because he was placed in status code P, all training is supposed to cease.  However, because there were only some in his unit who were qualified, he believes he was scheduled in order to increase his unit’s dismal training numbers, subsequently taking the wing commander's eyes off of his unit.

His commander's decision to allow him to be scheduled and attend M9/M16 training on profile benefits the unit, but the reluctance to allow him to transition into TSC F therefore must be an act of reprisal.  He states, “It would have been easier, less time consuming (and more beneficial for all) if he had returned me to TSC F, and award my 5-skill level than 2096 me back into TSC P.” His commander was aware of this, even the wing education office commented that they wondered “who I had pissed off,” since “nobody gets back-dated 6 months (at the commander's discretion) and 2096'd into TSC P."

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

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 an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, including his response to the evaluation, in judging the merits of the case.  The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; to include his disagreement with the commander on the proper Training Status Code; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the National Guard Bureau office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  Furthermore, in our view, we did not find the applicant’s submission sufficient to override the rationale expressed.  Notwithstanding the above, the applicant alleges he has been the victim of reprisal and has not been afforded full protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act (10 USC § 1034).  However, based upon our own independent review, we determined the applicant has not established that the adverse actions he cites were the result of reprisal.  In reaching this determination, we note the applicant did not submit direct evidence, such as an Inspector General (IG) or Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) report to support his assertions.  Therefore, we did not find that the applicant has been a victim of reprisal under Title 10 USC § 1034.  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.

4.  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.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2015-02921 in Executive Session on 10 May 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-02921 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Jul 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/A1D, dated 29 Feb 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Mar 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Mar 16.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.