RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03497 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Special Duty Assignment Pay (SDAP) be reinstated for the 
period of 1 Oct 08 to present. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His SDAP was stopped effective 1 Oct 08 due to an investigation 
that led to his general court-martial (GCM). The GCM sentence 
returned him to duty with a reduction in rank and 90 days of hard 
labor without confinement. AFI 36-3017 establishes eligibility 
for SDAP and Table 3 lists conditions that affect eligibility; 
none of the conditions applied to him. In fact, from May 08 to 
present, he has never been counseled for poor performance nor did 
he have his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) revoked. He 
submitted complaints to the Inspector General (IG) and his 
congressional representative to include an attempted Article 138 
request. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
Court-Martial Summary, copies of his IG complaints, a copy of the 
Article 138 request, copies of letters of recommendation, and a 
copy of AFI 36-3017. 

 

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of 
technical sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with 
a date of rank of 13 Aug 09. 

 

 

 

 

 

Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the 


Air Force Reserve Command. Accordingly, there is no need to 
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFRC/A1K recommends denial. A1K states the applicant was 
reassigned to administrative duties based on his misconduct. A1K 
notes that recruiter qualifications include maintaining 
professional military standards. The applicant applied through 
various channels such as HQ USAF/JAA AND HQ AFRC/CC to request 
reinstatement of his SDAP; however all requests were denied using 
due process on each occasion. Furthermore, the applicant’s IG 
and congressional complaints were determined to be unfounded, and 
his Article 138 request was rejected by the AFRC/CC and 
subsequently rejected by the HQ USAF/JAA in April 2010. A1K also 
notes that the proper authorities reviewed the applicant’s 
complaints. 

 

The AFRC/A1K complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant responded by stating that despite his GCM 
conviction, he was not removed from the recruiting squadron or 
discharged with a punitive discharge. While reassigned to the 
314th Recruiting Squadron, Burlington, NJ, he took over and 
revamped the Logistics office. If he had been working with any 
HQ element of the Recruiting Service he would have been given the 
title of Resources Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) and would have 
been entitled to SDAP at a lower rate than that of a production 
recruiter. The governing instruction clearly identifies 
eligibility for SDAP and the actions necessary to revoke it; 
however, none of those actions were accomplished. He believes 
his commander and another colonel acted inappropriately when they 
decided to enforce the AFI without stating a reason for 
withdrawing his SDAP. The colonel violated his rights under the 
Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) by influencing the 
Article 138 process. His Article 138 request was forwarded to 
the general officer for review based on the colonel’s input. He 
points these issues out to provide support to his contention that 
these leaders violated the very same rules that they are supposed 
to uphold. He believes the board will see that despite his legal 
issue, he was still entitled to SDAP and AFRC failed to follow 
the rule of law as set forth in the instructions. 

 

 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit D. 


 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice. Moreover the 
regulatory guidance included in the application authorizes the 
commander to stop this payment when he finds the member does not 
maintain the qualifications to perform the duties, effective as 
of the date the commander makes that determination. The 
commander determined his recruiter misconduct made him not 
qualified and in doing so the commander was acting within the 
scope of his authority and we find it inherently reasonable that 
someone who was found to have engaged in criminal recruiter 
misconduct should not be given this incentive pay. The applicant 
has not pointed out a specific provision that restrains the 
commander’s authority in this area. Rather he has only pointed 
to subsequent actions that are appropriate under different 
circumstances. The fact that other steps would have been taken 
if it were not criminal conduct, but job performance, is 
irrelevant to this proper exercise of authority. Furthermore, we 
note the agencies of review in this matter were the proper 
authorities and any future reviews are unnecessary for us to 
decide the case. Absent a showing as to why to deny him this pay 
under these specific circumstances was an error or injustice we 
find no basis upon which to correct the record. . 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-2010-03497 in Executive Session on 26 May 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Sep 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFRC/RSOO, dated 29 Oct 10. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Nov 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, not dated. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair