RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04045 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

____________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His involuntary, administrative separation be withdrawn and he 
be reinstated to active duty in the United States Air Force. 

 

2. His Letter of Reprimand (LOR) be removed from his record. 

 

______________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The nonjudicial punishment he received in December 2010 was 
unfair in that, as an alleged unintended consequence, it rendered 
him ineligible to test for promotion to the next rank before he 
was otherwise required to separate from the active service due to 
reaching his High-Year-of-Tenure (HYT) Date. In addition, his 
rater was not allowed by his unit commander to use his best 
judgment in rating his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered 
for the period 30 December 2009 through 29 December 2010. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his 
LOR; Article 15 documentation; numerous character references; his 
HYT Extension Request; awards; letters of appreciation; Community 
College of the Air Force Diploma; certificates of achievement; 
electronic communications; an excerpt of Air Force Instruction 
(AFI) 51-202, Supplementary Actions; and a Mitigation of 
Nonjudicial Punishment package with attachments. 

 

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 
enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic 
(E-1) on 24 July 2001. He served as a Structural Craftsman and 
was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5). 

 

On 18 November 2004, the applicant received nonjudicial 
punishment for driving while under the influence of alcohol. He 
received punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of 
airman first class (E-3), suspended until 28 April 2005; 
forfeiture of $450 pay per month for two months; and a reprimand. 


 

In the summer of 2010, the applicant received an LOR for being 
involved in a verbal altercation with a local National by 
exchanging racial comments and by acting in an unprofessional 
manner in violation of Article 134 of the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ), Disorderly Conduct. 

 

On 30 December 2010, the applicant received nonjudicial 
punishment for being drunk and disorderly, resisting arrest, and 
assaulting an Air Force Security Forces officer. He received 
punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of senior airman 
(E-4), with a new date of rank of 10 December 2010; 45 days extra 
duty; and a reprimand. 

 

The applicant was honorably discharged on 24 July 2011 in the 
grade of senior airman for reasons of reaching his HYT Date. His 
narrative reason for separation indicates “Reduction in Force.” 
He served 10 years and 1 day on active duty. 

 

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s 
military service records, are contained in the evaluations by the 
Air Force offices of primary responsibility at Exhibits C through 
F. 

 

____________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states the applicant does not 
allege an error in how the Article 15 was processed. He rather 
alleges an injustice in that, his commander failed to understand 
the consequences of the imposed Article 15 punishment of 
reduction in rank; which, subsequently forced him out of the 
military. However, a review of the Air Force Form 3070, Record 
of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings, indicates the applicant’s 
rights were observed throughout the process of the Article 15. 
The commander at the time of the Article 15 had the best 
opportunity to evaluate the evidence in the case and weigh it 
against the applicant’s written response and verbal presentation. 
There is no evidence, apart from the applicant’s assertions, that 
the commander did not appreciate the administrative consequences 
of the punishment he imposed. The commander exercised the 
discretion that the applicant granted him when the applicant 
accepted the Article 15 and, found nonjudicial punishment 
appropriate in this case. The legal review process showed the 
commander did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in making his 
decision. 

 

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSIMC recommends granting the applicant’s request to remove 
his LOR. DPMSIMC states the applicant was issued an LOR for a 
verbal altercation with a local National. The applicant 
acknowledged receipt on 10 November 2010. The rebuttal was never 


submitted and the commander did not make a final decision to 
maintain or withdraw the LOR. Therefore, the LOR was not 
processed in accordance with AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information 
File Program. 

 

The complete DPSIMC evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends the EPR, closing 29 December 2010 not be 
removed. DPSID states that although the applicant does not 
specifically request that relief be granted to any applicable 
EPR, they provide comment and analysis regarding specific 
allegations the applicant has made regarding the EPR rendered for 
the period 30 December 2009 through 29 December 2010. DPSID 
indicates the applicant’s contentions that his rater was not 
allowed by his unit commander to use his best judgment in rating 
the contested EPR and that the commander and his rater eventually 
“compromised” on an overall “3” rating versus the referral “4” 
rating the commander initially sought to reflect on the contested 
report is without merit. The impetus is on the applicant to 
provide compelling evidence of any allegation he makes. Such 
compelling evidence would be in the form of signed statements 
from members of the rating chain that rendered this EPR; however, 
any such statements are conspicuously absent in this appeal. In 
regard to the applicant’s allegation that the rater was coerced 
by the unit commander, to secure a rating the commander wished 
the rater to make is a serious allegation, and as such, demands a 
high standard of proof to substantiate. The applicant has 
provided unsupported allegations, personal opinions, and 
absolutely no proof that this event occurred as described. As 
such, they dismiss this allegation and find it to be without 
merit. 

 

Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the 
contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s 
record. The applicant has not substantiated in any way that the 
contested EPR was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators 
based on the knowledge available at the time and, not rendered in 
accordance with all applicable policies and procedures. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE provides information only. DPSOE states that in 
accordance with separation policies at the time, if a member with 
less than ten years of active service was demoted to the rank of 
senior airman, their HYT was adjusted to the ten-year point. In 
the applicant’s case, his Total Active Federal Military Service 
Date (TAFMSD) was 24 July 2001, and he was demoted to senior 
airman effective 10 December 2010 (just over nine years active 
service). Therefore, his HYT was adjusted to 24 July 2011 and he 
became ineligible for promotion consideration during promotion 
cycle 11E5. In order to be eligible for promotion consideration 
for staff sergeant during promotion cycle 11E5, a member’s date 
of separation or retirement date had to be 1 September 2011 or 
later. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2502, Table 


1.1, Rule 1, if on or after the promotion eligibility cutoff 
date, and the airman is serving in the grade of senior airman to 
staff sergeant, then the airman is ineligible for promotion 
during a particular cycle when he or she had a mandatory date-of-
separation, HYT, or an approved retirement before the first day 
of the month promotions are incremented in that cycle 
(1 September 2011 for cycle 11E5). Therefore, the applicant was 
ineligible for promotion consideration to staff sergeant during 
promotion cycle 11E5 due to his mandatory separation date. 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit F. 

 

____________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 12 April 2012 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit G). As of this date, this office has received no 
response. 

 

______________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was timely filed. 

 

3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate an error in regard to the applicant’s request to void 
and remove his contested LOR. We note that AFPC/DPSIMC 
recommends granting the applicant’s request to void and remove 
his LOR from his record due to the fact the LOR was not processed 
in accordance with AFI 36-2907. Based on the foregoing, we 
concur with DPSIMC’s recommendation to void and remove the 
contested LOR. In regard to the applicant’s request to have his 
administrative separation withdrawn and to be reinstated to 
active duty, we find insufficient relevant evidence has been 
presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We 
note the applicant alleges that the nonjudicial punishment he 
received in December 2010 was unfair in that, as an alleged 
unintended consequence, it rendered him ineligible to test for 
promotion to the next rank before he was otherwise required to 
separate from active service. After a thorough review, the 
record does not reveal, nor has the applicant provided, any 
evidence that would lead us to believe that the contested 
nonjudicial punishment, or the subsequent involuntary separation, 
was unintended on the part of the imposing commander. Therefore, 
in view of the above, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of AFLOA/JAJM that the applicant’s involuntary 
separation does not constitute an error or injustice. 


Accordingly, that portion of the applicant’s request is not 
favorably considered. 

 

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 RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that his Letter of 
Reprimand, issued for a verbal altercation with a local National 
be voided and removed from his record. 

 

____________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-04045 in Executive Session on 28 June 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-
04045 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Sep 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 1 Dec 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIMC, dated 5 Jan 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 13 Feb 12. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 2 Apr 12. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Apr 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair