RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2022-00797

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 	COUNSEL: XXXXXXXXXXXX 

  	HEARING REQUESTED: NO 	 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His reenlistment (RE) code reflect completion of military service obligation (MSO), instead of RE code “5I” (Ineligible for reenlistment-under consideration for administrative discharge).  

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

The separation action was retaliation by his command. Prior to his expiration term of service (ETS), he was notified of a separation action.  He was entitled to a separation board; however, his unit never executed the board in a reasonable manner.  His RE code should reflect completion of his MSO.  

His ETS was 20 Jun 19.  As of this date, he was advised he was still being processed for discharge.  He provided witness testimony in an inspector general (IG) complaint for fraud, waste and abuse against his commander and the chief enlisted manager (CEM).  After the investigation, he submitted his package to transfer to the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR).  The request to transfer to the IRR was not routed and instead a discharge package was initiated.  

His ETS came up and he had not received a status update.  The force support squadron (FSS) refused to process his separation and advised he was being processed for discharge although his contract had ended.  After not receiving any communication for several months, on 23 Aug 19 he filed a Congressional complaint.  He was then advised by Headquarters Air Force Reserve his separation order was processed on 23 Aug 19 and backdated to 20 Jun 19, his ETS.  This was not true as he had been attempting to get his orders since returning his lap top to his supervisor on 8 Aug 19.  The RE code is in error and the FSS did not remove the RE code “51” prior to processing his separation order as required.  This has hindered him from being able to process back into the Air Force Reserve.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is an Air Force Reserve staff sergeant (E-5).  

AF IMT 1168, Statement of Suspect/Witness/Complainant, dated 25 Jul 18 shows a witness indicated that a MilPDS tracer confirmed the applicant changed his date of rank (DOR) and effective for promotion to staff sergeant from 1 Mar 17 to 1 Jan 17.  The MilPDS reflects his DOR and effective date for promotion to staff sergeant are 1 Mar 17.  

On 14 Jan 19, the applicant’s Red Horse Squadron Commander (RHS/CC) notified him of his intent to recommend he be discharged with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge for commission of a serious offense-misrepresentation in accordance with AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members.  The specific reason was that he on or about 1 Jan 17 accessed the MilPDS to manipulate system data for his personal benefit and falsified his promotion order.  The memorandum advised he was eligible for an administrative discharge board.  

On 17 Jan 19, the applicant acknowledged the discharge notification and requested a board hearing.  

A memorandum dated 21 Jun 19, states the applicant requested discharge effective 20 Jun 19 for ETS.  The applicant’s signature block shows “Member Unavailable to Sign.”    

The applicant provides Reserve Order A-165 dated 23 Aug 19, which shows he was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve with RE code “5I” (Ineligible for reenlistment-under consideration for administrative discharge), effective 20 Jun 19.  

On 10 Sep 19, the AF/RE informed the applicant’s Congressman the discharge package was rescinded on 20 Jun 19.  The applicant’s allegation the discharge action was initiated in retaliation of his accusation of fraud, waste and abuse against his commander and CEM was incorrect.  A commander directed investigation (CDI) was initiated based on the applicant’s allegation; however, during the exploratory phase of the investigation the investigating officer (IO) found evidence of wrongdoing by the applicant.  A separate CDI was initiated to investigate the applicant’s wrongdoing.  The CDI against the applicant substantiated he violated standards by accessing the MilPDS to change the system for his personal benefit and falsified his promotion order without legal authority to do so.  As a result of the substantiated allegation, the discharge action was initiated.  The allegation that his unit was withholding his discharge was an incorrect statement and the FSS has provided a copy of the applicant’s separation folder.   

In an email dated 24 Sep 19, the applicant requested his unit correct his RE code as he was separated under honorable conditions and was not pending an administrative discharge.  

On 27 May 20, the applicant’s waiver of RE code “5I” was approved by Air Force Reserve and he was sworn into the Air Force Reserve on 29 May 20 as an Air Reserve Technician (ART) in the FSS.  

The applicant’s automated records management system (ARMS) record includes Reserve Order dated 22 Jul 20, showing he was reassigned from the RHS to the FSS, effective 29 May 20, per the Air Force Reserve recruiter’s declaration to the Merit Systems Protection Board dated 20 Aug 20.  

On 13 Sep 20, the FSS/CC recommended he be discharged in accordance with AFI 36-3209 for fraudulent entry, commission of a serious offense-misrepresentation.  Specifically, the applicant signed a statement requesting a waiver of an adverse reenlistment code stating the separation code was due to an administrative error and there was nothing negative in his records, statements he knew were misrepresentations of the truth.  His enlistment with the FSS was fraudulent because except for his statement, he would not have been granted waiver of the “5I” RE code.

On 13 Sep 20, the applicant was denied participation for pay and points due to his pending discharge.  

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFRC/A1KK recommends denial.  The applicant was separated honorably with RE code “5I” as indicated on his separation order in accordance with policy.  

On 19 Sep 18, the RHS/CC submitted a discharge package on the applicant.  On 21 Oct 18, the MilPDS was updated to reflect duty status code “28” (Pending separation/under investigation include Air Reserve Command (ARC) in or awaiting initial active duty training).  Further, his RE code was updated to “5I.”  An investigation determined the discharge was not pulled back prior to his ETS; therefore, the RE code “5I” would remain and be placed on his discharge orders.

In accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment and Extension of Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, the applicant was ineligible to reenlist due to the RE code “5I.”  He could have requested a voluntary extension; however, correspondence/investigation with the unit shows the applicant requested to be allowed to separate on ETS.  

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 9 May 22 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFRC/A1K and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.   The applicant contends the separation action was in retaliation for giving witness testimony against his commander and the CEM; however, he has provided no evidence to show he was retaliated against or that the recommended discharge for his offense in manipulating the MilPDS for his benefit was improper or unjust.  While the evidence shows the administrative discharge action was rescinded, he has provided no evidence to show the RE code “5I” was in error as this was the applicant’s RE code in effect at the time of his separation.  Accordingly, the Board finds the applicant’s discharge order dated 23 Aug 19 showing he was honorably discharged for completion of his MSO with RE code “5I” is correct as reflected.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

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-2022-00797 in Executive Session on 14 Jun 22:

 , Panel Chair 
 , Panel Member
 , Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 3 Mar 22.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, AFRC/A1KK, w/atchs, dated 4 May 22.  
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 9 May 22.

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