RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-04656

   	COUNSEL: NONE
	 
 	HEARING:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

1.  The denial of an Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM) be removed from his record and he receive the AFGCM.

2.  His reenlistment (RE) code of 2X (First-term, second-term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program [SRP]) be changed to an RE code of 1. 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS:

After he filed a complaint with the Inspector General (IG) at his base, his leadership abused their authority and took negative personnel actions against him.  After reporting an incident to the IG, he was the victim of retaliation.  He was also the victim of burglary of items from his car, his car was shot at, he received multiple harassing calls, and he received extra work duty.  His direct supervisor was addicted to heroin, marijuana, and lorazepam while supervising him.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served in the Regular Air Force in the grade of Senior Airman. 

According to the documentation submitted by the applicant:

	a.  On 9 Jul 14, the applicant submitted an AF Form 102, Inspector General Personal and Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Complaint, against two members of his leadership for giving him Letters of Reprimand (LORs), accusing them of abuse of authority and impersonating an officer.  

	b.  On 21 Jul 14, he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) from his supervisor for failing to answer his phone while on standby, and reporting to duty in civilian clothes when called on standby.   

	c.  On 25 Sep 14, he received an LOR for being late reporting to duty.  

	d.  On 8 Dec 14, the applicant’s commander did not select him for reenlistment, stating he “continuously fails to meet standards.”  

	e.  On 18 Dec 14, he received a Letter of Admonishment (LOA) for failing his Air Force Fitness Assessment.  

	f.  On 4 Mar 15, the applicant’s commander denied him the AFGCM due to “his pattern of misconduct.”   

	g.  On 29 Mar 15, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge certificate with a narrative reason for separation of “non-retention on active duty,” an RE code of 2X, and was credited with six years of active duty service.  

	h.  On 29 Jan 16, the ACC/IG notified the applicant they had investigated his complaints, to include his allegation of reprisal, and determined them to be unsubstantiated.  Further, their analysis was subsequently reviewed by the Secretary of the Air Force Complaints Resolution Directorate (SAF/IG), and the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD/IG), each which concurred there was insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s contentions.  

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denying the application.   AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment and Extension of Enlistment in the United States Air Force, states commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non-selection authority.  The Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) considers the members Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) ratings, unfavorable information from any substantiated source, the airman’s willingness to comply with Air Force standards and/or the airman’s ability (or lack of) to meet required training and duty performance levels.

The applicant believes his direct leadership abused their authority, but does not prove there is an error or injustice in reference to his RE code.  The supervisor and commander listed on the AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, dated 18 Dec 14, are not the supervisor or commander the applicant identifies as abusing their authority.  Additionally, the applicant is specifically asking for a RE code in the #1 series.  AFI 36-2606, chapter 5 clearly states not to separate members in the #1 series RE codes except for the RE code 1J--“Eligible to reenlist, but elects separation.  (All Airmen selected under the Selective Reenlistment Program [SRP], but who elect separation are given RE code 1J.)”  The applicant cannot be awarded a RE code 1J as he was not reenlistment eligible, but was non-selected for reenlistment by his commander.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 18 Sep 17 for comment (Exhibit D), 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 that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2SSM and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions. Therefore, the Board concludes the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error on injustice.  In view of the above and in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, the Board finds no basis to recommend granting any of the relief sought in this application. 

4.  The applicant alleges he has been the victim of a reprisal and or abuse of authority.  As noted above, on 29 Jan 16, the ACC/IG notified the applicant they had investigated his complaints, to include his allegation of reprisal, and determined them to be unsubstantiated.  Further, their analysis was subsequently reviewed by the Secretary of the Air Force Complaints Resolution Directorate (SAF/IG), and the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD/IG), each which concurred there was insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s contentions.   Nevertheless, based on the authority granted to this Board pursuant to Title 10 U.S.C. Section 1034, the Board reviewed the complete evidence of record to reach its own independent determination of whether reprisal occurred.  Based on their review, the Board did not find that the applicant’s leadership abused their authority and took negative personnel actions against him.  In view of the foregoing, the Board concludes the applicant has failed to establish the actions by his commander were due to reprisal for his making a protected communication.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, the Board does not find that the applicant has been the victim of reprisal pursuant to Title 10, U.S.C. Section 1034.

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 Docket Number BC-2016-04656 in Executive Session on 22 Aug 18:

Chair
Member
Member

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

Exhibit A:  Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 14 Nov 16.
Exhibit B:  Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:  Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 11 Aug 17.
Exhibit D:  Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 18 Sep 17.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.