RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03541

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her reenlistment (RE) code of 6U, “Not Selected for Retention by Commander,” be changed to allow her to enlist in the Air Force Reserve.  By rebuttal, the applicant requests corrective action to allow her to retire.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The RE code she received was unjust.  She was punished for the same incident twice.  She received a reduction in grade and was offered an administrative discharge board.  She requested to be transferred to a different unit instead of being discharged.  She did not get into any more trouble after her reduction in grade and does not understand why she is being forced out after 16 years of service.  She filed a complaint against her command.  She would just like to complete her service.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 22 September 2006, the applicant commenced her enlistment in the Louisiana Air National Guard (ANG).

On 15 August 2014, the applicant was tried by Summary Court-Martial and was charged with three specifications of willful disobedience to superior commissioned and noncommissioned officers, two specifications of insubordinate conduct of a noncommissioned officer and one specification of failure to obey an order or regulation.  She was found guilty of four of the charges and was sentenced to a reduction in grade from E-6 to E-4.

On 16 October 2014, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was recommending her discharge from the Louisiana ANG for a pattern of misconduct.  The specific reasons for the discharge action was the applicant demonstrated willful disobedience of superior commissioned officers, superior enlisted personnel and exhibited insubordinate conduct towards superior enlisted personnel.

Her commander advised her of her rights in this matter and after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant submitted a conditional waiver of her right to an administrative discharge board contingent upon her receipt of an honorable discharge.

The legal office reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient to support separation.

On 20 April 2015, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Louisiana ANG and was credited with 16 years and 9 months of service.  Her NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service reflected a reason for separation of “misconduct-a pattern of misconduct” with corresponding separation program designator (SPD) code of “HKA” and RE code of “6U.”

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/A1PP recommends granting the applicant’s request for a change in the RE code, indicating there is evidence of an error or injustice.  The RE code 6U is inaccurate and should be updated to 6H (pending discharge – involuntary) which is the appropriate code for a service member being separated due to a pattern of misconduct.  According to AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, “a pattern of misconduct consisting wholly, or in part, of misconduct more serious than that considered under Substandard Performance.”  The applicant’s commander indicated her discharge was based on her conduct over a period of time not only the incident in question that resulted in her court-martial.  The commander outlined the events that established a pattern up to and including her court martial.  The pattern includes two separate letters of counselling, two separate letters of reprimand, and several other verbal and written counselling.

A complete copy of NGB/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In support of her request, the applicant states it seems that even if her request to change RE code is approved, she will not be able to reenter military service.  Therefore, she is amending her request to reflect she be allowed to retire.  She elected to have a court-martial, not her commander.  It was not until she filed a Congressional complaint against her command that is was decided to discharge her.  She requested to be transferred before her commander decided to discharge her.

Further, other service members are experiencing the same treatment she endured, but are afraid to speak up.  They are afraid they will be subjected to the same punishment that she endured.  Her commander informed her that her AGR position was going away, but it did not.  He just no longer wanted her in the position so that he could give the position to another air traffic controller.  She admits she was not a perfect Airman, but she is not the person her commander is trying to make her out to be.  

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

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1PP recommends denying the applicant’s request for a retirement indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice.  The applicant has not provided any additional documentation in her rebuttal request for a retirement that has not already been considered in their initial advisory.  

Additionally, the applicant indicated in her original application that she requested to be transferred to a different unit, but was discharged instead.  She has provided a copy of an email exchange between her and her commander, in which he responded, “The process for transfer is the same as the last time you tried to go active duty.  The first thing you would need to do is find a unit that is willing to take you.  Then write a request for conditional release through your supervisor (acting first SGT C.) to me stating the reasoning.  At that time, it is forwarded to the wing Commander and the JFHQ director of staff Air for approval.  Once you have the conditional release you would need to be cleared to enlist with the unit you found in step one”.  The applicant failed to provide proof she attempted to join another unit and was denied a conditional release by her chain of command.

Therefore, NGB/A1PP recommends denial of the applicant’s request for a retirement in lieu of a change in her RE code.  The applicant has provided no additional evidence of an error or injustice.

A complete copy of NGB/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In further support of her requests, the applicant indicates she has included emails and text messages that show she requested to be transferred several times.  She even asked if she could perform her drills at a different unit until her transfer went through.  She contacted recruiters and the Louisiana Air National Guard Retention Office Manager (ROM)); and was informed that they were trying to locate a slot for her, but had not located a unit that could take her at the time.  She also contacted a Fighter Wing and was told that because of her NGB Form 22 discharge code she would not be able to join that unit.  She never received replies nor was she contacted by leadership outside of her command regarding her request for a transfer.  An email from legal counsel for her leadership indicated that she should not have been surprised that they wanted to discharge her.  Therefore, she took that to mean her leadership did not intend to allow her to transfer to another unit.  She even contacted the Army National Guard but was unable to secure a transfer with them.  She is now requesting retirement because she has exhausted all avenues to reenter military service.  She is willing to appear before the Board and has witnesses that will testify in her behalf.  

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

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, to include her rebuttal responses, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice with respect to her request that she be allowed to retire.  We find no evidence showing she applied for or met the criteria for retirement.  Regarding the applicant’s request that her RE code be changed to allow her to enlist in the Air Force Reserve, we note the OPR indicates RE code 6U, “not selected for retention by commander,” is inaccurate and the appropriate RE code for a member separated due to a pattern of misconduct is 6H, “pending discharge – involuntary.” Additionally noted is that based on the OPR’s indication of an inaccurate code, the applicant’s NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, has been administratively corrected to reflect RE code 6H, which is in accordance with governing instructions.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting relief beyond that rendered administratively.

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-2015-03541 in Executive Session on 27 September 2016, 9 June 17, and 13 July 2017, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03541 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jul 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, NGB/A1PP, dated 23 May 16, w/atch.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 May 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Jun 16.
	Exhibit F.  Memorandum, NGB/A1PP, dated 29 Jul 16.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Aug 16.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Aug 16, w/atchs.

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.