RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02854 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Letters of Counseling (LOC) dated 20 January 2012 and 2 July 2012 be declared void removed from his records. His removal from primary duties on 3 July 2012 and 19 July 2012 be declared void and removed from his records. His Letters of Reprimand (LOR) dated 2 August 2012 and 18 September 2012 be declared void and removed from his records. He receive reinstatement of his 12 September 2012 forfeited re-enlistment bonus. His Unfavorable Information File (UIF), effective 1 October 2012, be declared void and removed from his records. His AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance report (EPR) (AB thru TSgt), rendered for the period 30 September 2011 thru 14 November 2012, be declared void and removed from his records. His records be corrected to reflect that he was released from active duty and retired in the grade of master sergeant (E-7), rather than honorably discharged in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6). He be awarded all back pay and entitlements as an E-7. He be awarded, as the Board sees fit, all decorations that were withheld as an act of reprisal. His records be reviewed for additional acts of reprisal and/or injustices. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was targeted by the Force Shaping Board as a result of a referral EPR and UIF. He would not have been a target if acts of reprisal had not been taken or he was an E-7. The Responsible Management Official(s) (RMOs) initiated unlawful, legally unsupportable, retaliatory and unfavorable personnel actions against him and thereby they should be rescinded and become void. His referral EPR was submitted and became a matter of record after its fourth attempt at finalization. The entire process was an additional act of malpractice and misconduct by the RMO(s). The report is so blatantly fraudulent and the RMO(s) are in direct violation of the AFI. He was never provided feedback on is rebuttal nor was he provided initial feedback after the referral report. He made protected communication under the provisions of Title 10 United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 1034, Protected communications; prohibition of retaliatory personnel actions, the Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 7050.06, Military Whistleblower Protection, and the Air Force Instruction (AFI) 90-301, Inspector General Complaints Resolution, regarding the RMO(s) intentional deception of knowingly and willfully violating law, regulation, and policy, as well as, committing acts of fraud, waste, and abuse. In addition, the RMO(s) made threats to cause serious bodily injury or threats to kill. His protected communications were made directly to the RMO(s) or they had direct knowledge of it. The RMO(s) then took and threatened retaliatory unfavorable personnel actions against him and restricted his communication. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that these actions are both unlawful and legally unsupportable and they would not have been taken if he had not made the protected communication. The injustices have been under investigation since 19 June 2012 and an Inspector General (IG) complaint filed on 15 October 2012 for allegations of reprisal and restriction. His book titled, “Absence of Integrity” details each of the intentional reprisal actions that negatively impacted his career. It is a critical examination of the acts of reprisal and restriction that occurred as a result of identifying and elevating the misconduct in the Air Force Recruiting School and complaints mishandling that have occurred from 2012 to the present. His case rests on the simple undeniable fact that not a single adverse action would have been taken against him if his protected communication that identified the dereliction, fraud, waste, and abuse of the subjects had been not been provided. The IG decisions to commit fraud by refusing to comply with the complaint resolution process, to delay the investigative process, to misidentify information, and to dismiss the allegations are fundamentally flawed and are in direct violation of several legally binding documents. His primary goal has always been to supply the AFBCMR with the final finding from the IG investigations. However, the process has completely fallen prey to the same irresponsible officials and has been mishandled. There is no end in sight. Therefore, he requests the board to correct the injustices in his record. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 September 1999. On 19 June 2012, the applicant filed a complaint with the Air Education and Training Command Office of the Inspector General (AETC/IG), which was forwarded to the 37th Training Wing Inspector General’s office. Specifically, his complaint included the following: a) Between 9 January 2009 and May 2012, an Instructor Supervisor made a false official statement in violation of Article 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), by inaccurately accounting for teaching and Multiple Instructor Requirement (MIR) hours on an official record. b) Between 9 January 2009 and May 2012, an Instructor Supervisor was derelict in the performance of his duties, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ, by failing to recognize and/or expose the falsification of official teaching and MIR hours records. c) On or about 15 May 2010 and or about 11 June 2012, an Instructor Supervisor took reprisal action against the applicant, in violation of AFI 90-301, when he threatened to take and took an unfavorable personnel action against the applicant for making a protected communication, i.e. talking to the commander and making an IG complaint about allegedly false records and disparate workload. d) On 4 June 2012, the Chief Enlisted Manager made a false official statement, in violation of Article 107, UCMJ, when stating unawareness of the applicant’s allegations of falsified records and that the applicant never addressed any such concerns to the staff, when the applicant had done so on at least five times. On 6 July 2012, the 37th Training Group Commander directed a Commander Directed Investigation (CDI) to investigate the applicant’s allegations. On 27 July 2012, the Investigating Officer (IO) concluded the applicant’s allegations of false official statement, dereliction of duty, and reprisal to be unsubstantiated. On 1 August 2012, the CDI was found to be legally sufficient. On 3 August 2012, the IO provided his findings and made three recommendations to bring a level of oversight to ensure the accuracy of what is being logged into the Student Transcript Administration and Records System Faculty Database (STARS-FD) system, in order to dispel any misconceptions. On 17 August 2012, the Air Education and Training Command (AETC) Commander provided the applicant with the written resolution to his complaint. On 24 October 2014, the applicant informed the 37th Training Group Commander that she had been inaccurately informed and deceitfully influenced by individuals that are attempting to cover their actions. He addressed the CDI findings. On 29 September 2014, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “Force Shaping-Voluntary Separation Pay (VSP),” along with a separation code of MCN” and Reentry Code of “3K” (reserved for used by HQ AFPC or AFBCMR when no other reenlistment eligibility code applies). He was credited with 15 years, and 22 days of active service. On 5 August 2015, the applicant was notified that according to the Secretary of the Air Force, Office of The Inspector General, Complaints Resolution Directorate (SAF/IGQ), the Air Education and Training Command (AETC) had recently completed its investigation and his case was with the Secretary of the Air Force, Office of The Inspector General (SAF/IG) for oversight. Upon completion of SAF/IGQ’s review they will send the case to the Department of Defense, Office of The Inspector General Whistleblower Reprisal Investigations (DoDIG/WRI) for review and coordination. It cannot be predicted on how long DoDIG/WRI will take in finalizing its review. Therefore, he must wait until the IG avenue of relief has been exhausted prior to requesting relief from the AFBCMR. On 15 October 2015, the applicant ask for the Board not to administratively deny his request since the IG failed to properly conduct and conclude its investigation in a timely and appropriate manner. Furthermore, he refutes the IG is an avenue of administrative relief and his evidence identifies intentional mishandling by the IG. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1.  The applicant has not 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. In this respect, we note this Board is the highest administrative level of appeal within the Air Force. As such, an applicant must first exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief provided by existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief before this Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction. We note the applicant has availed himself to the Inspector General (IG) process and his case is currently under active investigation. We find that it is prudent to await the final decision and disposition of his case prior to the Board’s adjudication of his case. We believe to render fair and equitable consideration of the applicant’s requests, his investigation must be concluded and the report provided for us to review. In view of this, we find this application is not ripe for adjudication at this level as there exists a subordinate level of appeal that has not first been depleted. Therefore, in view of the above, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that all available avenues of administrative relief have not been exhausted; and the application will only be reconsidered upon submission of documentary evidence indicating that said avenues of administrative relief have been exhausted. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-02854 in Executive Session on 12 November 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 July 2015, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.