RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00249 

 INDEX CODE: 131.05 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His rank of airman first class (A1C) be reinstated with 
19 months of time in grade from airman basic. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He voluntarily extended his confinement time in order to 
complete the Return to Duty program (RTDP). Since his release, 
he has spent time taking every opportunity to better himself and 
those around him. 

 

He is not asking for back pay and realizes that reduced pay was 
a consequence of his offense. He is asking to have his rank 
match his skill-level. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of 
character reference letters, a listing of accomplishments, 
course completion test scores, a Letter of Appreciation, and 
certificates. 

 

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 14 Mar 08, the applicant was found guilty, by a General 
Court-Martial of, on divers occasions, wrongfully using and 
distributing methylenedioxymethamphetamine, commonly known as 
ecstasy. He was sentenced to confinement for 10 months, 
reduction in rank from airman first class to airman basic, and 
forfeiture of all pay and allowances. 

 

On 23 Jul 08, the Clemency and Parole (C&P) Board approved the 
applicant’s request for entry into the RTDP, effective as soon 
as possible. However, prior to his entry into the program, the 
applicant met a Discipline and Adjustment Board and received 
14 days of loss of privileges. On 8 Aug 08, after a review of 
the incident, the C&P Board again approved him for the RTDP. The 
applicant successfully completed and graduated the RTDP on 
13 Jan 09, and on 23 Jan 09, the C&P Board recommended his 
reinstatement back onto active duty. He was reinstated onto 


active duty and is presently serving in the grade of airman, 
with a date of rank of 19 Jan 10. His current date of separation 
is 24 Aug 13. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states that in accordance 
with the RTDP, candidates are not entitled, by virtue of 
successful completion of the program, to be returned to the 
grade they held before the court-martial. 

 

The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states that although the 
applicant completed the RTDP, no error or injustice occurred in 
his case. 

 

The complete HQ AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He states the recommendations of denial by both HQ AFPC/DPSOE 
and AFLOA/JAJM were made based on incorrect facts and the 
purpose of their recommendations has been undermined therefore 
making the recommendations void. The convening authority did not 
order him to the RTDP; he voluntarily applied and was approved 
by the C&P Board. 

 

Granted the RTDP does not offer any assurances of return to 
duty, let alone rank upon returning to duty. However, it is 
important to consider the intent of the program. The USAF 
invests thousands of dollars, hours, and effort in an attempt to 
rehabilitate candidates of the program for the purpose of 
resuming a productive role within the USAF. At a time of 
personnel reduction in the military, it is vital that each 
member be entitled to achieve their highest earned level of 
performance and this in turn, further benefits the USAF. 

 

He questions the purpose of his rank being held back and states 
it is not his intent to argue the validity of the proceedings of 
his trial. He has performed well beyond the minimum 
requirements and expectations for his assigned position. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 


 

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. We note the 
applicant’s disagreement with the advisory opinions prepared by 
AFLOA/JAJM and HQ AFPC/DPSOE and his assertion the opinions 
should be declared void. However, we disagree with his view of 
the opinions and note that the issue before us is whether the 
applicant should be restored to the grade of airman first class 
with 19 months time in grade from airman basic. Notwithstanding 
how the applicant may have come to participate in the RTDP, he 
asserts that because of his performance in the program and his 
subsequent accomplishments and performance, it is an injustice 
to both he and the Air Force not to restore his grade. Again, 
we disagree. We believe the intent of the program has been met 
with the opportunities he has been provided. It is interesting 
to note the applicant’s statement that he is not seeking back 
pay if his grade is restored because he recognizes that “reduced 
pay is a consequence of my offense….” In our view the grade he 
now holds is also a consequence of his offense and pay is linked 
to that grade. While his skill-level may exceed that of others 
in his grade, his situation is not any different from others who 
may have been reduced in grade as a consequence of their 
misconduct. As such, in our view, he has not been the victim of 
an error or injustice and should only be provided opportunity 
for advance promotion available to other airmen of his grade. 
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. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2010-00249 in Executive Session on 3 August 2010, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Ms. XXXX, Panel Chair 

 Ms. XXXX, Member 

 Mr. XXXX, Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Jan 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 4 Mar 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOE, dated 18 Mar 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Apr 10. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 19 May 10. 

 

 

 

 

 XXXX 

 Panel Chair