RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01202 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be retired in the grade of master sergeant. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. He was honorably discharged and demoted to the grade of staff sergeant for supposedly falsifying Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) documents. 2. After he filed a Congressional Inquiry (CI) a pre-meditated Commander Directed Investigation (CDI) was initiated on 20 Jul 05. He was set-up by Chief Master Sergeant M----- and the United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR) Headquarters personnel in retaliation for filing a CI. 3. He was asked to provide copies of his AF Form 623a, On-the- Job Training Record – Continuation Sheet and certifications {sic} two weeks prior to his activation orders end date. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; emails, VA Forms 10-0114R, VA Fax Transmittal; memorandums, and various other documents associated with his request. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 26 Feb 04, the applicant attempted to steal a Digital Video Disc (DVD) and music Compact Disc (CD) from Walmart. On 19 Apr 04, he was found guilty in Fairborn, Ohio, Municipal Court of criminal theft, a misdemeanor, for attempting to steal a DVD and music CD from Walmart. For this misconduct, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR). On 25 Mar 05, he submitted two forged Professional Military Education (PME) certificates to the 445 AW training office that falsely showed he completed the Noncommissioned Officer Academy (NCOA) by correspondence on 7 Mar 89, and the Senior Noncommissioned Officer Academy (SNCOA) by correspondence on 16 Dec 93. On 1 May 05, the applicant was notified that the 445 AW/CC directed a CDI be initiated relating to his completion of the NCOA and SNCOA. Specifically, the CDI was initiated based on a suspicion that the SNCOA certificate he submitted was not accurate. He was restricted from all Reserve participation for pay and/or points, including Unit Training Assemblies (UTAs), annual tours, and mandays. Evidence was obtained that the applicant had not completed either course but, rather, had dis-enrolled from both courses numerous times for failing the exams. Air University (AU) personnel also discovered several inaccuracies on the certificates submitted by the applicant, such as signatures by commanders and chief master sergeants who were not physically assigned to AU at the time the certificates were issued. On 7 Oct 05, the applicant received a LOR for submitting the forged certificates. On 20 Jan 06, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members for Misconduct – Commission of Serious Offense, Other Serious Offense with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge characterization. On 31 Jan 06, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the Memorandum of Notification and submitted an Air Force Form 131, Application for Transfer to the Retired Reserve In Lieu Of an administrative discharge for cause. On 15 Feb 06, the 445 Aerospace Medicine Squadron Commander (445 AMDS/CC) and the 445 AW/CC, both disapproved the applicant’s request for retirement from the Air Force Reserves. On 5 Mar 06, the Air Force Reserve Command Acting Staff Judge Advocate (AFRC/JAA) reviewed the case and found it legally sufficient and recommended the AFRC/CC forward the applicant’s retirement application to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) with a recommendation that it be disapproved so that the administrative discharge process could continue. On 24 Jul 06, the applicant was demoted from the grade of master sergeant to staff sergeant. On 29 Aug 06, AFRC/CV recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request to transfer to the Retired Reserve in lieu of an administrative discharge and forwarded the case to SAFPC for final decision. On 28 Sep 06, SAFPC recommended disapproval. SAFPC stated that the applicant’s request to transfer to the Retired Reserves was not warranted given the nature of his misconduct. SAFPC stated that he displayed a fundamental lack of integrity by forging official military documents and shoplifting, which constitutes a significant departure from the minimum standards of conduct for members of the Air Force. On 2 Oct 06, the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) disapproved the applicant’s application for retirement submitted on 31 Jan 06 and stated that retirement at this time was not considered in the best interest in the Air Force. On 18 Oct 06, the applicant was notified that the SAF disapproved his application to transfer to the Retired Reserve. The specific reason for disapproval was the previous separation action initiated on 20 Jan 06, was being resumed to separate the applicant under the provisions of AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members for Misconduct, Commission of Serious Offense, Other Serious Offenses. On 1 Nov 06, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the Notification of Resumption of Separation Action. On 2 Nov 06, the applicant was discharged from the AFRC in the grade of staff sergeant. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1K recommends denial. A1K states that the applicant’s retirement request was considered and disapproved by the SAF. Subsequently, the applicant was discharged. The SAF action is presently, as it was at the time of the SAF approval, supported by AFRC. The applicant has not provided any information or data that would change the commands position on his retirement request or discharge from the Air Force Reserve. The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The statement by AFRC/AIK which states that he should have been allowed to retire in Jan 06 is inaccurate. He wants the respect and dignity to retire after 23 years of military service and to be eligible for his earned retirement pension. He was never afforded the option to retire in person at the base Military Personnel Flight (MPF) because of the restrictions listed on the CDI notification letter. He believes the CDI was established due to a disagreement in the management of the Air Reserve Technicians (ART) regarding work ethics, fraud, waste and abuse as stated in his CI. He can provided witnesses to corroborate the wrath and humiliation he endured. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and do not find that it supports a determination that he has been the victim of an error or injustice. While the applicant’s assertions are noted, he has not provided substantial evidence to support his request for retirement in the grade of MSgt. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In addition, the applicant alleges that the CDI was established due to a disagreement in the management of the ARTs regarding work ethics, fraud, waste and abuse. However, he did not submit direct evidence, such as an Inspector General (IG) or Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) report to support his assertions. Therefore, 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. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-01202 in Executive Session on 9 Jan 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Available Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 15 Jul 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 13. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Aug 13. Panel Chair 4 5