RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03463 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. He be reinstated to active duty (Examiner’s Note: In his rebuttal to the advisory opinions, the applicant amended his application to include this request). 2. In the alternative, he requests that his Reentry (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 1J (eligible to reenlist-elected separation or discharge) to allow his reenlistment in the military. 3. His separation code be changed from LGH (non-retention on active duty) to LBK (completion of required active service). 4. He be given full separation pay, rather than half. ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His separation under the Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13) Date of Separation (DOS) Rollback Program for serving on the control roster, from 29 Nov 12 to 28 May 13 was unjust. His Unfavorable Information File (UIF) action and his placement on the control roster were unjust and should be removed. On 27 Dec 12, his citation of petit theft was dismissed in civilian court. Even though his commander was notified of the dismissal, he choose not to remove him from the control roster or remove the UIF; which is in violation of AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information File (UIF) Program, para 1.9.2.1. . In addition, the control roster rationale section on the AF IMT 1058, Unfavorable Information File, and the Letter of Reprimand (LOR) make reference to a previous Article 15 that he received in a previous enlistment, which is not in accordance with AFI 36-2907, para 1.4.4. The statement made on the AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) Consideration for Airman in the Regular Air Force/Air Force Reserve, dated 13 Mar 13, is false as no such larceny was committed. He was notified the control roster action automatically placed him on the FY13 Rollback Program. He submitted an appeal to his commander requesting that he be removed from the UIF and the control roster. However, his appeal was denied. On 28 Mar 13, he submitted a Rollback appeal to the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) to identify the error on the AF Form 418 and issues with the LOR, UIF, and control roster. On 23 Apr 13, his appeal was denied and there were no corrections or reasoning listed. On 15 Jul 13, he was separated from the Air Force. He had no intention of leaving the Air Force but was kicked out as a result of inconsistent, prejudice, and untimely use of non- punitive administrative tools. The FY13 DOS Rollback Program Personnel Services Delivery Memorandum (PSDM 13-14) and separation orders identified the separation code to be entered as LBK and not LGH. He contacted the Separations office at Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA) Randolph to correct this issue, but they were unable to manually change separation code on DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, because the automatic LGH separation code was loaded in their system. They were unable. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of the FY13 Enlisted DOS Rollback Program (PSDM 13-14); DD Form 214, issued in conjunction with his 15 Jul 13 separation; AF IMT 100, Request and Authorization for Separation; AF IMT 973, Request and Authorization for Change of Administrative Orders, dated 6 May 13 and various other supporting documents. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 August 2009 for a period of five years, with entitlement to a Zone B, Multiple 2 bonus. He received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for being cited by the police department for attempting the theft of vehicle lights. As a result, on 19 Nov 12 an AF Form 1058, Unfavorable Information File (UIF) Action was established and the LOR filed therein. In addition, he was placed on the control roster. On 19 Nov 12, the applicant acknowledged receipt of commander's intent to establish an UIF and control roster. The applicant indicated that he did not intend to provide information to be considered before the final decision was made. The commander's final decision to place the applicant on the control roster was made on 29 Nov 12. The applicant's control roster expiration date was 29 May 13. Since the applicant was placed on the control roster his RE code would reflect 4I (Serving on a Control roster) until 29 May 13. On 13 Mar 13, applicant's commander completed an AF IMT 418 and decided not to select the applicant for reenlistment under the FY13 DOS Rollback Program. On 13 Mar 13, the applicant acknowledged his non-selection for reenlistment and on 14 Mar 13, rendered his intent not to appeal the decision. Based on the commander's non-recommendation for retention, the applicant was released from active duty. On 15 Jul 13, the applicant was separated under the FY13 DOS Rollback Program, with a RE code of 2X; a narrative reason for separation of non-retention on active duty and separation code of LGH, with half-separation pay. He was credited with 10 years, 10 months, and 18 days of active service. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial. DPSIM notes that procedurally, the LOR, UIF, and control roster actions were administered correctly and there is no indication the commander was without authority in administering actions or continuing the applicant on the control roster. It is not within their authority to determine if the commander's actions were just or unjust. On 29 Apr 13, RE code 4I was updated to 2X due to a mandatory update for the DOS Rollback program. The applicant provided Judgment of Dismissal documentation, dated 27 Dec 12, stating “NOWTHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the criminal complaint filed against the Defendant [applicant] is DIMISSED for the following reason: State's Motion to Dismiss granted by the Court.” In accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2907, paragraph 2.1 "The control roster is a rehabilitative tool for commanders to use. Commanders use the control roster to set up a 6-month observation period (HQ AFRC or HQ ARPC may establish longer observation periods, not to exceed 12 months, for Reserve personnel if deemed appropriate) for individuals whose duty performance is substandard or who fail to meet or maintain Air Force standards of conduct, bearing, and integrity, on or off duty." That being said, the commander was within his authority to place the applicant on the control roster for failing to maintain standards. He was within the six months from the date of the action (20 Oct 12) to establish an UIF/control roster for the attempted theft of the vehicle lights IAW paragraph 1.4.4. IAW PSDM 13-14, FY13 Enlisted DOS Rollback Program; “RE 4I or AAC16 (must expire on or after PSDM release date, must complete an AF Form 418 NLT 29 Mar 13.” Since the applicant's RE code reflected a 4I until 29 May 13, the commander was in his right to make him ineligible for reenlistment on the AF Form 418. The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his separation code. Based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the release from active duty was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) memorandum and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. The applicant did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that occurred in the separation processing. The applicant’s character of service is correct as indicated on the DD Form 214. IAW the SecAF memorandum dated 31 Jan 13, "Airmen with six or more years of active service and less than 20 years of active service not serving in their initial term of enlistment are authorized one-half separation pay. The initial term of enlistment is the service obligation that the applicant incurred upon initial enlistment into the Air Force." The records show the applicant had more than six years but less than 20 years of service and was not in his initial enlistment at the time of the FY13 DOS rollback program but on a subsequent enlistment; therefore, the authorization for one-half separation pay is correct. The SPD code of "LBK" as reflected on the applicant's separation orders was correct at the time the orders were produced. It was a temporary code that HQ USAF authorized to reflect members receiving half separation pay until SPD code "LGH" could be updated into the military personnel database and reflected on all automated DD Forms 214 produced under this guidance. Once code "LGH" was in the database and capable of being produced on the automated DD Forms 214, it replaced code "LBK" as the code to use for half separation pay. As a result, the separation orders do not reflect the same code as the DD Form 214, even though they both mean half separation pay under this guidance. If the Board deems necessary, DPSOR can amend the separation orders to match the correct code that is indicated on the applicant's DD Form 214. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change the RE code. The applicant's RE code of 2X was based on his non-selection for reenlistment. On 29 Apr 13, the applicant acknowledged the denial of his appeal. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s original package was to address the separation code issue and to fix his separation pay resulting from his wrongful placement on the control roster. He would ultimately like to be reinstated back into the USAF. According to the FY13 DOS Rollback Program (PSDM 13-14), personnel separated under this program will be assigned a SPD code on their DD Form 214 reflecting “Completion of Required Active Service." Due to him being on the control roster he was automatically placed on FY13 DOS rollback program and if were not for this program, he would have been able to remain in the Air Force for the remainder of his enlistment in Sep 14. In further support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement and resubmits documents that were provided in his initial application extracted from his Military Personnel Record (MPR). The applicant’s complete response in further support of his appeal, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. ________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice warranting corrective action of the applicant’s reason for separation, separation code, separation pay, and the RE code. The applicant contends that actions were not processed in accordance with the governing instructions. However, the applicant’s case has undergone a thorough review by the Air Force Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPRs) and he has not provided any evidence, in our view, that will override their assessment of the case. In this respect, while we note that the PSDM for the FY13 DOS Rollback noted that members should be separated with a reason for separation of completion of required active service; as noted by the OPR, a memorandum from the SecAF states that LBK was a temporary code that was being used at the time of the applicant’s separation and was only used for the purposes of the rollback. Both codes, LBK and LGH, only provide for half separation pay. Therefore, since the applicant had completed more than six years of service but less than 20, based on SecAF memorandum, at the time of his separation, the correct code was LGH. Based on the evidence the applicant was separated with the appropriate narrative reason for separation and corresponding separation code. Additionally, we find no error with respect to the type of separation pay he received as a result of being separated under the FY13 DOS Rollback Program. 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. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-03463 in Executive Session on 17 Jun 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Jul 13, w/atch. Exhibit B. Extracts from Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 3 Jan 14. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 21 Jan 14. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 13 Feb 14. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Feb 14. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Mar 14, w/atchs. 1 2