RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04397 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 17 August 2009, be 
removed from his record. 

 

2. His placement on the control roster be voided. 

 

3. His promotion to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) (E-5) in 
accordance with his selection by the 09E5 promotion board be 
reinstated. 

 

4. His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code be changed from “4D” 
(Grade is senior airman or sergeant, completed at least nine 
years of Total Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS), but fewer 
than 16 years of TAFMS, and has not been selected for promotion 
to staff sergeant) to a “1-series” RE code. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His LOR, Unfavorable Information File (UIF), and placement on the 
control roster were harsh and unjust. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a statement from 
his counsel, Unit Compliance Inspection (UCI) documentation, LOR, 
response to LOR, UIF action, Weighted Airman Promotion System 
(WAPS) documentation, Communications System Installation Records 
(CSIR) Manager documents, electronic communications, and three 
Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs). 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
served from 15 March 2001 to 1 December 2009 with prior active 
duty service (5 years and 18 days) in the Marine Corps Reserve 
from 1991-1995. 

 


On 23 December 2003, the applicant received Article 15 punishment 
for failure to obey a lawful order in violation of Article 92, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), by driving his car on 
base when his installation driving privileges were 
suspended/revoked for a period of six months. He received 
punishment consisting of reduction in grade to senior airman 
(SrA) (E-4), with a new date of rank of 15 December 2003, and a 
reprimand. That portion of his punishment consisting of 
reduction in rank was suspended until 9 August 2004. On 14 June 
2004, the suspension of reduction in rank was remitted. 

 

The applicant received a referral EPR for the period 3 January 
2007 through 2 January 2008. The report indicated the 
applicant’s overall performance assessment as a “2” (Needs 
Improvement). 

 

On 1 July 2008, the applicant received Article 15 punishment for 
dereliction of performance of duties in violation of Article 92, 
UCMJ, by negligently failing to follow Air Force Instruction 64-
117, Acquisition, as it was his duty to do; and, for violation of 
Article 121, UCMJ, by wrongful appropriation of a Laptop Computer 
of a value of about $1,338.00, the property of the United States 
Air Force. His punishment consisted of reduction in grade to 
SrA, with a new date of rank of 1 July 2008, and forfeiture of 
$669.00 pay per month for two months. 

 

The applicant was tentatively selected for promotion to the grade 
of SSgt during cycle 09E5. He received a promotion sequence 
number (PSN) 11504.0 which was to increment on 1 June 2010. 

 

As a result of a UCI, on 17 August 2009, the applicant received 
an LOR for dereliction of duty for failing to perform his duties 
as the CSIR Manager and failure to obey direct orders from the 
Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge of Plans and Implementation 
work center concerning the proper procedures to maintain the CSIR 
program. On 24 August 2009, his commander notified the applicant 
of his intent to establish a UIF and place him on the Control 
Roster, which resulted in the cancellation of the applicant’s 
projected promotion. 

 

On 23 October 2009, the applicant applied for a separation date 
effective 1 December 2009 for reduction in force reasons. The 
discharge authority approved his request. 

 

The applicant was honorably released from active duty effective 
1 December 2009 after serving 8 years, 8 months, and 17 days on 
active duty with the Air Force. His DD Form 214, Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty, indicates his narrative 
reason for separation as “Reduction in Force” and his RE code as 
“4D.” 

 

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the military 
personnel records, are contained in the evaluations from the Air 


Force offices of primary responsibility at Exhibits C, D, E, and 
F. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request for 
reinstatement of his promotion to SSgt with a date of rank of 
1 June 2010. DPSOE states a control roster is a rehabilitative 
tool for commanders to use. Commanders use the control roster to 
set-up an observation period (not to exceed 12 months) for 
individuals whose duty performance is substandard or who fail to 
meet or maintain Air Force standards for conduct, bearing, and 
integrity, on or off duty. In accordance with Air Force 
Instruction (AFI) 36-2907, the UIF is destroyed upon expiration 
of the control roster period. Since the applicant waited more 
than a year after the establishment of the UIF and his discharge 
to petition the Board, official documentation regarding his 
UIF/Control Roster is no longer in is records. 

 

DPSOE indicates the applicant’s commander was in the best 
position to evaluate the applicant’s potential and eligibility 
for promotion, and acted within his authority when he decided to 
place the applicant on the control roster. 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states that every enlisted 
member is assigned a High Year of Tenure (HYT) date when they 
reach three years time in service. The established HYT date is 
the year and month a member reached ten years Total Active 
Federal Military Service (TAFMS). E-4s are separated upon 
reaching ten years TAFMS without progressing to the next higher 
grade. Since the applicant was reduced to the grade of SrA and 
had over 13 years and nine months service, his HYT was changed to 
the maximum of four months after his effective date of demotion. 
Although the applicant did have a PSN for SSgt, he became 
ineligible for promotion due to placement on the control roster 
and; therefore, reached his HYT and was separated. 

 

DPSOO states that based on the documentation on file in the 
master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the 
procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge 
regulation. The applicant provides no facts warranting a change 
to his narrative reason for separation. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial to change the applicant’s RE code. 
DPSOA states the applicant does not provide any evidence of an 
error or injustice in reference to his RE code. His RE code of 
“4D” is required per AFI 36-2606, Chapter 3, based on his grade 


of senior airman and time in service of over 9 and less than 16 
years. Additionally, the applicant wants a “1 series” RE code; 
however, the only RE code in the “1 series” a member can separate 
with is “1J” (Eligible to reenlist, but elects separation). All 
airman selected under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) 
and elect separation are given RE code “1J.” The applicant 
cannot be awarded a RE code “1J” as he was not selected for 
reenlistment by his commander under the SRP. His RE code of “4D” 
is correct per AFI 36-2606, Chapter 3. 

 

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove 
his LOR, UIF, and control roster. DPSIM states that in 
accordance with AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information File (UIF) 
Program, commanders at all levels can issue administrative 
reprimands, establish UIFs, and use control rosters. Upon review 
of the applicant’s case file, he submitted a response to the 
initiator before a final decision was made to establish a UIF and 
placement on the control roster by using an Air Force Form 1058, Unfavorable Information File Action. However, a copy of the form 
reflecting the commander’s final action of establishing a UIF and 
placing the applicant on a control roster was not included in the 
case file. The applicant separated on 1 December 2009 and does 
not have an active UIF in the Military Personnel Data System 
(MilPDS). 

 

The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit F. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

What all of the advisory opinions fail to address is his client’s 
substantive issues - the fairness and appropriateness of the LOR, 
subsequent creation of a UIF, and placement on the Control 
Roster. His client was selected for SSgt four days before his 
placement on the Control Roster. The appropriateness of the LOR 
is central to his request for relief, as he would have been 
promoted and retained in the Air Force had it not been imposed. 
His client is appealing to the Board’s equity powers of fairness 
and justice, which is beyond the purview of the advisory 
opinions. 

 

The counsel complete rebuttal is at Exhibit H. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 note of 
the applicant’s contentions that his LOR, UIF, and subsequent 
placement on the control roster were harsh, unjust and 
inappropriate; however, we find he has not provided sufficient 
evidence to support these assertions. The commander identified 
the applicant’s dereliction of duties that led to the LOR, 
considered the applicant’s statement in response, and 
subsequently determined to maintain it. In cases of this nature, 
we are not inclined to disturb the judgments of commanding 
officers absent a strong showing of abuse of discretionary 
authority. The Board does not believe there is such showing 
here. The evidence indicates that the applicant was offered 
every right to which he was entitled. He submitted a written 
statement in response to the LOR for review by the imposing 
commander and the imposing commander determined the LOR should be 
maintained. There is nothing in the evidence provided, other 
than the applicant and counsel’s assertions, which would lead the 
Board to believe that the actions by the imposing commander were 
inappropriate or that he did not have access to all of the 
information necessary on which to base his decision. The 
applicant has not provided any evidence showing that the imposing 
commander abused his discretionary authority, or that his 
substantial rights were violated. Therefore, 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. 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-04397 in Executive Session on 18 August 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 


 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-04397 was considered: 

 

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

Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 13 May 11. 

Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 20 May 11. 

Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 26 May 11. 

Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 20 Jun 11. 

Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Jul 11. 

Exhibit H. Letter, Counsel, not dated. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair