RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-04335

XXXXXXXXXX					COUNSEL: NONE

							HEARING: NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His rank of sergeant (Sgt), and noncommissioned officer (NCO) status, be restored.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was stripped of rank based on religious discrimination.  He worked at the Communication Center and asked to have Saturdays off in order to attend church.  While other co-workers received weekends off to attend college, he was denied.  He appealed to the commander, stating he could work on Sundays, or barring that, he requested to be transferred to his second career field, but was denied.  He received an honorable discharge, but was stripped of his rank of sergeant.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Air Force senior airman (SrA).  

In Mar 85, the applicant attended the NCO Preparatory Course in residence. 

On 1 Jan 86, the applicant received NCO appointment.

On 5 Dec 88, the applicant’s NCO status was vacated and he was non-selected for reenlistment due to his reluctance to work on the Sabbath and his expressed desire to be separated as soon as possible in order to fulfill his religious obligations.

On 15 Jan 89, the applicant was honorably discharged with 5 years, 3 months, and 25 days of active service.

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SPP recommends denying the application.  

In Jun 76, E-4 was designated as both SrA and Sgt.  Air Force leadership determined in order to become an NCO, E-4s must:  serve on active duty in that rank for 1-year, attend NCO preparatory course, and be recommended by their commander.  It was an appointment, not a promotion, and did not change the pay grade (E-4) or rate of pay.  

On 16 Jan 85, the applicant entered the rank of SrA/E-4.  On 1 Jan 86, he received his NCO appointment (Sgt/E-4) status.  The applicant requested voluntary early separation, and his request was granted.  On 5 Dec 88, AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment/Noncommissioned Officer Status Consideration, vacated the applicant’s NCO status.  On 15 Jan 89, he was honorably discharged in the rank/grade of SrA/E-4.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA recommends denying the application.  

Air Force Regulation 35-16, USAF Reenlistment and Retention Program, required the applicant’s commander to vacate the applicant’s NCO status once a decision was made to non-select the applicant for reenlistment.  On 13 Dec 88, the applicant signed acknowledgment of NCO vacation, and intention not to appeal the decision.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 2 Aug 18 for comment (Exhibit E), and the applicant replied on 7 Aug 18.  The applicant contended he met all Air Force standards, and was not told why he was non-selected.  He was just told to remove his star the last 6 months before separation and when he inquired no one would talk to him.  He was not counseled on an appeal process.  The decision to vacate his NCO status was discrimination and unfair work practices.  With his reply the applicant provided two duplicate documents from his original submission, AFI 36-2602, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, and an excerpt from AFI 36-2606, Paragraph 2.1. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES:

1.  The application was not timely file.

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/DP2SPP and AFPC/JA and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  Moreover the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application. The Board finds the application untimely and concludes it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS:  

The applicant be informed that the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; 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-2017-04335 in Executive Session on 4 Sep 18:

	, Panel Chair
	, Panel Member
	, Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following regarding AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2017-04335:

Exhibit A:  Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 27 Sep 17.
Exhibit B:  Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:  Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SPP, dated 28 Jun 18.
Exhibit D:  Advisory opinion, AFPC/JA, dated 30 Jul 18.
Exhibit E:  Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 2 Aug 18.
Exhibit F:  Applicant’s response, dated 7 Aug 18.

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