RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02177 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His rank of senior airman (SrA) be reinstated, with a date of 
rank (DOR) of 2 April 2009. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

On 2 April 2009, he was demoted to the grade of airman first 
class (AlC) due to a special court-martial. Once he was 
sentenced and demoted, he served 50 days in the Bangor Naval 
Brig. He was granted early release from confinement and was 
sent to Lackland AFB, TX for entry into the Air Force Return-to-
Duty Program (RTDP) based on the recommendation of the convening 
authority and his command leadership. 

 

AFI 31-205, The Air Force Correction System, states candidates 
may petition the Air Force Board for Correction of Military 
Records (AFBCMR) for some or all of the rank lost because of a 
court-martial sentence at the end of the candidate’s probation 
period. AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, states 
airman convicted by court-martial receiving a discharge as 
punishment that are approved for the RTDP will undergo suspended 
court-martial punishment, while serving a 12-month probationary 
period beginning the completion date of the RTDP. Since his 
court-martial did not result in a discharge, the 12-month 
probationary period does not apply in this case. 

 

Since his return to active duty, he resumed his duties as Unit 
Education and Training Manager, a position filled in the past by 
a technical sergeant. Even though his rank is no longer 
commensurate with the responsibility, he has stepped into the 
required role and fulfilled the trust of those he serves. He 
feels the progress he made in the past few months and the 
confidence he has earned from his leadership qualifies him for 
the opportunity to regain his lost rank. 

 

In 2008, he made a mistake but his professional life as an 
airman has never faltered and he has exceeded the expectations 
of his supervisors throughout his career. During his first 
enlistment, he received numerous awards/recognition. Toward the 
end of his enlistment in 2006, he could not get a Career Job 
Reservation (CJR) due to force shaping. He chose to retrain 
into the Unit Education and Training career field to remain in 
the Air Force and has performed his duties exceptionally well. 

 


In 2007, he was promoted to staff sergeant. Outside of his 
personal life, he was a model noncommissioned officer (NCO). 
The personal problems he had are now behind him. Since the 
investigation, he has pushed past the issues and continues to 
use the surrounding support network. 

 

Being reduced in rank by two grades has had a significant impact 
on his family. He has a wonderful wife and three children. His 
middle child was diagnosed with Autism, which requires numerous 
therapies and special education needs. Getting some or all of 
his rank back would truly be a blessing. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
letter, copies of character reference letters, his AF Forms 910, Enlisted Performance Reports; a listing of his accomplishments 
and awards. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 19 March 2009, the applicant was found guilty, by a special 
court-martial for wrongfully using oxycondone, a schedule II 
controlled substance, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code 
of Military Justice (UMCJ). He pled guilty to the offense and 
was sentenced to confinement for 105 days, reduction in rank 
from staff sergeant to airman first class (E-3) and a reprimand. 

 

On 7 May 2009, the convening authority approved the final 
action, but deferred the confinement to 21 days to allow the 
applicant to complete his in-patient drug rehabilitation 
program. 

 

On 5 June 2009, the Clemency and Parole (C&P) Board approved the 
applicant’s request for entry into the RTDP. The applicant 
successfully completed and graduated from the RTDP on 20 October 
2009. He was reinstated onto active duty and is presently 
serving in the grade of airman first class, with a DOR of 19 Jan 
10. His current date of separation is 24 Aug 13. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states a review of the 
record of trail confirms no error in the court-martial; 
likewise, the applicant’s success in the RTDP indicates no error 
in that program. The necessary implication from the applicant’s 
request is that he is alleging injustice in his current 
situation. The applicant successfully came back from the 
offense that led to his court-martial. He completed the RTDP 
and has been reinstated to active duty, avoiding an involuntary 
administrative discharge for drug abuse. 


 

AFI 31-205 states a person’s whole record, not just the crime, 
is reviewed for entry into the RDTP. After acceptance, the 
member must stay as long as necessary to determine whether he or 
she should be returned to duty or discharged. This time period 
is sometimes past the individual’s minimum release date from 
confinement. Members who are returned to duty will have the 
unexecuted part of any sentence suspended for up to one year, or 
as determined by the Air Force Corrections and Parole Board. 
The member must serve at least one year or until the expiration 
term of service (ETS), whichever, is longer. Members who 
successfully complete the RTDP are not entitled to be returned 
to the grade they held before the court-martial. JAJM states 
they do not believe returning the applicant to the rank of 
senior airman is justified under AFI 31-205. 

 

The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states JAJM has 
determined there are no legal errors requiring corrective action 
and has recommended the applicant’s request for restoration to 
the grade of SrA be denied. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 15 October 2010, copies of the Air Force evaluations were 
forwarded to applicant for review and response. As of this 
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an error or injustice to warrant 
changing his date of rank. We took notice of the applicant’s 
complete submission in judging the merits of the case, however; 
we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force 
offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as 
the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the 
victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-02177 in Executive Session on 9 March 2011, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

Panel Chair 

Member 

Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Jun 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 23 Aug 10. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 3 Sep 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 10. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair