RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01916 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. He be reinstated to the grade of Senior Airman (SrA). 2. If the Board grants his request, he be returned to active duty. 3. His current enlistment be extended so that he is eligible for promotion and reenlistment. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was reduced to the grade of Airman Basic (AB) as a part of his court-martial punishment. He completed the Return to Duty Program (RTDP) and will have completed the mandatory probationary period of one year on 6 Jun 2013. He wants to be eligible to test for promotion and mentor younger airmen to not make the same mistakes he made. He made a smooth transition back to his career field as an air traffic controller and is committed to his unit. He has also volunteered over 200 hours to his community. He will have proudly served the Air Force for 7 years and wants nothing more than to continue to serve. In support of his request, the applicant provides several letters of support and a copy of his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR). The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered active duty on 1 Aug 2006 on a 6 year enlistment. On 14 Nov 2011, the applicant pled guilty and was found guilty of one charge of dereliction of his duties by failing to notify finance of his divorce, in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); one charge of making a false official statement when he stated he had provided a copy of his divorce decree to the military personnel flight when he had not, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ; one charge of larceny for taking and accepting military housing allowance payments and family separation allowance payments, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ; and one additional charge of making a false official statement where he claimed his ex-wife as a dependent when she was not his dependent, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ. The applicant was sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD), forfeiture of all pay and allowances and a reduction to the grade of AB. On 19 Dec 2011, the convening authority approved the findings and sentence. On 7 Jun 2012, the Air Force Clemency and Parole Board approved the applicant for the RTDP under the provisions of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 31-205, The Air Force Corrections System, and suspended the BCD until 6 Jun 2013. His DOS was extended to 31 Jul 2013 to allow completion of the RTDP. In accordance with AFI 36-2601, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, 6 year enlistees must be in the grade of SrA to reenlist or extend their enlistment. On 31 Jul 2013 he was discharged with an honorable characterization of service and Reentry (RE) code 4E, which denotes, “A1C or below completed 31 or more months.” The applicant served 7 years on active duty. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of his requests to extend his enlistment to make him eligible to reenlist. The applicant’s approval for the RTDP was not a decision to allow him to extend his career past his current enlistment, but to allow him the opportunity to complete his current enlistment and avoid a punitive discharge. The applicant’s circumstances are the same as others who are forced to separate because of RE code 4E as a result of 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. Being returned to duty should not afford the applicant the opportunity to extend his enlistment and continue his career when others similarly situated are not afforded the same opportunity. Although the RE code 4E will force the applicant to separate, he will not receive the BCD he was once projected for. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. DPSOE recommends denial of his request to reinstate his grade of SrA. The applicant was ineligible for promotion until 6 Jun 2013 as a result of the suspended BCD. In accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, an airman is ineligible for promotion for a particular cycle when they have been convicted by a court-martial, or is undergoing punishment/suspended punishment imposed by court-martial. In the applicant’s case, he would not be eligible for promotion to the grade of SrA until 6 Jun 2016. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. The applicant alleges no injustice or error and his record of trial shows no error in the processing of the court-martial conviction against him. At his court-martial, he pled guilty to and was found guilty of the charges. The applicant was represented by military counsel and was afforded every right he was entitled to. Prior to accepting his guilty plea, the military judge ensured the applicant understood the meaning and effect of his plea and the maximum punishment that could be imposed if his guilty plea was accepted by the court. There is no requirement to provide this type of relief to an individual who completes the RTDP. The applicant was reduced to the grade of AB as punishment for his misconduct. He was given the opportunity to remain in the Air Force for the remainder of his term of enlistment and he excelled at this opportunity. In return, he will already be given clemency as the remaining of his unserved sentence, the BCD, will be remitted now that his probationary period is completed. Granting further clemency in this case would take away from those who have worked hard to promote and committed no serious misconduct. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 5 Jul 2013 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). As of this date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ 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 an injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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-2013-01916 in Executive Session on 11 Feb 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Apr 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 7 May 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 15 May 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 12 Jun 2013. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Jul 2013.