RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04975 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he was promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His records reflect that he never held the grade of E-4. In fact, he was an E-4 for 26 months prior to being reduced in rank due to an Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) action. His Federal Income Taxes were being taken based on him being paid as an E-4 versus his reduced grade of airman first class (E-3). He was an E-4 and was not overpaid. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of an Afghanistan Campaign Medal certificate, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) Notice and various other documents associated with his request. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 13 Apr 04, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. Between on or about 25 Sep 07 and on or about 26 Sep 07, the applicant stole an XM Satellite Radio, of a value of about $250.00. For this misconduct, he received an Article 15, UCMJ, reduction to the grade of airman first class, with a new date of rank (DOR) of 3 Dec 07, and forfeiture of $250.00 per month for two months. The portion of punishment which extended to the forfeiture was suspended through 2 Jun 08, at which time it was to be remitted without further action unless sooner vacated. On or about 25 Aug 08, the applicant stole an Apple iPhone, of a value of about $500.00 or less. For this misconduct, he received an Article 15, UCMJ, reduction to the grade of airman basic (E-1), with a DOR of 7 Nov 08, and forfeiture of $673.00 pay per month for two months. On 6 Mar 09, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen for Misconduct: Commission of a Serious Offense, other Serious Offenses. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the discharge notification, consulted with counsel and waived his right to submit a statement on his own behalf. On 6 Apr 09, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s discharge. He was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) in the grade of airman basic. He was credited with five years and one day of active duty service. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE makes no recommendation. DPSOE states that the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) reflected erroneous updates during the processing of the Article 15 and mitigation process; however, the updates were corrected. DPSOE states that it is not clear which record the applicant wants corrected as the MilPDS reflects the following grade history: Grade DOR Effective Date AB 13 Apr 04 13 Apr 04 A1C 28 May 04 26 Aug 04 SrA 28 Sep 06 28 Sep 06 A1C 3 Dec 07 3 Dec 07 SrA 1 Apr 08 1 Apr 08 AB 7 Nov 08 7 Nov 08 DPSOE states that no further corrections are required as MilPDS reflects the applicant held the grade of senior airman. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. DFAS-IN recommends denial. DFAS-IN states that a review of the applicant’s Master Military Pay Account (MMPA) reflects the debt is valid. DFAS-IN states that the applicant’s debt consists of two parts. The first part, in the amount of $440.86 is for the recovery of the uncollected unearned portion of his Selective Enlistment Bonus (SEB), which is based on his separation program designator code (SPD) “JKQ,” for misconduct. The Department of Defense (DoD) Financial Management Regulation, states that the recovery of the unearned portions of an enlistment and reenlistment bonus is required when a member does not complete the terms of enlistment and/or reenlistment. The second part, in the amount of $2,235.66 is due to overpayment of military pay and allowances for the period of 28 Sep 06 through 6 Nov 08. Due to the applicant’s disciplinary actions, posting to his MMPA were input well after the fact; however, the applicant was well aware of the rates of pay he should have been receiving. Since the adjustments to his pay were posted late it was necessary for the MMPA to collect the overpayment, thus causing the debt. The complete DFAS-IN evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 21 Dec 12, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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 error or injustice. After a thorough review of the available evidence and the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence which would persuade us that his records should be disturbed. While the applicant contends he was not overpaid, he has not provided sufficient evidence to override the rationale provided by DFAS. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and DFAS and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 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 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 Docket Number BC-2012-04975 in Executive Session on 25 Jul 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Vice Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Oct 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 19 Nov 12. Exhibit D. Letter, DFAS-IN, undated, w/atchs. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Dec 12 Vice Chair