RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01250 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her enlistment be extended to allow her the opportunity for promotion. 2. In the alternative, if her request is not granted prior to her separation, she request to be reinstated into the Air Force. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 30 September 2010, she pled guilty at a special court-martial and was punished with a reduction in rank, forfeiture of $500 pay per month for 6 months, 45 days hard labor without confinement and 90 days restriction to base. She was accepted into the Return to Duty Program which began on 7 March 2011. After months of rigorous rehabilitation, she completed the program and was retained in the Air Force. Following the program, she was placed on a one-year probationary period during which she could not wear rank or receive any disciplinary actions. After arriving at her new base with her new Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), she sought out volunteer opportunities and strived to make a lasting impression on her intent to work hard and serve honorably even though she had been court-martialed. She went through technical school training and completed the course with an overall 85 percent average. She completed the second course with an overall 90 percent average. Once she returned to her base, she was signed off on upgrade training tasks in the minimum allotted time and received a score of 87 percent on her end-of-course test. She completed her community college of the Air Force associates degree. She also volunteered in the local community and with national charities. She completed the probationary period which enabled her to wear rank. She requested her rank be back dated to her punishment date; however, that request was denied. Due to the extensive time that she was unable to wear rank, she did not have enough time-in-grade for reenlistment eligibility. She has acquired maturity and experience throughout her career and this experience. She accepted responsibility for her actions. Additionally, she has consistently shown that she is a highly motivated airman. She finds it quizzical the Air Force would invest so much time, effort and money into her retention and separate her without allowing her to gain full potential in her new AFSC. She hopes the Board considers her drive to achieve great things and to be a successful asset to the Air Force. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides her RTDP approval and character statements. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 28 April 2009. During a special court-martial on 30 September 2010, she pled guilty and was found guilty of dereliction of duty by wrongfully drinking alcohol under the age of 21, in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and wrongfully using cocaine, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. A panel of officers sentenced her to be reduced to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $500 pay per month for 6 months, hard labor without confinement for 45 days and restriction to base for 90 days. Documentation submitted by the applicant shows that she was approved for return to duty by the Air Force Clemency and Parole Board (AFC & PB) on 18 July 2011. She was discharged from the Air Force on 27 April 2013 after serving 4 years of active duty service. Her narrative reason for separation was listed as completion of required active service and her service was characterized as honorable. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. The applicant does not believe there was an error or injustice. She supports her request by pointing to the Air Force Clemency and Parole Board’s decision to let her serve the rest of her 4 year enlistment instead of being involuntarily separated after her court-martial conviction. However, the AFC & PB approved her request within the confines of the return to duty program that offers selected court-martialed enlisted personnel with exceptional potential the opportunity to be returned to active duty and have their punitive discharge, if adjudged, remitted. The applicant currently has a reentry code of 4E, grade is airman first class or below and airman completed 31 or more months (55 months for a 6–year enlistee), if a first-term airman; or, grade is airman first class or below and the airman is a second-term or career airman, which will still apply on her date of separation and prevent her from staying in the Air Force. The applicant’s approval to be returned to duty was not a decision to allow her to extend her career past her enlistment, but to allow her the opportunity to complete her current enlistment and avoid a punitive discharge. The applicant’s circumstances are the same as hundreds of other Air Force members that are forced to separate that also have RE code 4E based on their time-in-service and grade which stemmed from disciplinary infractions. The difference is most of their infractions did not lead to being court-martialed and being eligible to apply for and complete the RTDP if convicted; being returned to duty should not afford the applicant the opportunity to extend her enlistment for the purpose of obtaining the appropriate grade and becoming eligible to continue her career, when others who possess RE code 4E do not have the same opportunity. Although the applicant will be forced to separate, she will have an honorable character of service which is what the RTDP allowed her to achieve versus receiving a punitive discharge with most likely a lesser character of service. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. The RTDP is the Secretarial implementation of 10 U.S.C. 953 (Remission or suspension of sentence; restoration to duty; reenlistment). The RTDP gives airmen the opportunity to be returned to active duty and have a punitive discharge, if adjudged, remitted; it does not provide for the restoration of rank. AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, governs eligibility for promotion. That instruction contains no provision enabling the applicant to regain rank lost as a result of a criminal conviction. Completion of the RTDP does not guarantee return to duty, it only requires airmen returned to duty be allowed to serve at least one year before separation. The applicant separated from the Air Force on 27 April 2013 due to a reenlistment code of 4E. Based on her date of rank to airman of 18 July 2012, she would not have been eligible for promotion to airman first class until 18 May 2013, provided no ineligibility conditions existed and she was recommended by her commander. While the applicant successfully completed the RTDP, there was no error or injustice in her case. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 28 June 2013 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. ________________________________________________________________ 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. The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and her contentions were duly noted. However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in support of her appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by Air Force offices of primary responsibility. Therefore, we agree with their opinion and recommendation and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 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 that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of actionable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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-2013-01250 in Executive Session on 3 December 2013 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 9 Apr 13. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 1 May 13. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jun 13. 1 2