RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04975
		COUNSEL: NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect he was promoted to the grade 
of senior airman (E-4).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His records reflect that he never held the grade of E-4.  In 
fact, he was an E-4 for 26 months prior to being reduced in rank 
due to an Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 
action. 

His Federal Income Taxes were being taken based on him being 
paid as an E-4 versus his reduced grade of airman first class 
(E-3).  He was an E-4 and was not overpaid.

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of an 
Afghanistan Campaign Medal certificate, Enlisted Performance 
Report (EPR) Notice and various other documents associated with 
his request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 13 Apr 04, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.  

Between on or about 25 Sep 07 and on or about 26 Sep 07, the 
applicant stole an XM Satellite Radio, of a value of about 
$250.00.  For this misconduct, he received an Article 15, UCMJ, 
reduction to the grade of airman first class, with a new date of 
rank (DOR) of 3 Dec 07, and forfeiture of $250.00 per month for 
two months.  The portion of punishment which extended to the 
forfeiture was suspended through 2 Jun 08, at which time it was 
to be remitted without further action unless sooner vacated.

On or about 25 Aug 08, the applicant stole an Apple iPhone, of a 
value of about $500.00 or less.  For this misconduct, he 
received an Article 15, UCMJ, reduction to the grade of airman 
basic (E-1), with a DOR of 7 Nov 08, and forfeiture of 
$673.00 pay per month for two months.  

On 6 Mar 09, the applicant was notified of his commander’s 
intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under 
the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of 
Airmen for Misconduct: Commission of a Serious Offense, other 
Serious Offenses.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
discharge notification, consulted with counsel and waived his 
right to submit a statement on his own behalf.  

On 6 Apr 09, the discharge authority approved the applicant’s 
discharge.  He was discharged with service characterized as 
general (under honorable conditions) in the grade of airman 
basic.  He was credited with five years and one day of active 
duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOE makes no recommendation.  DPSOE states that the 
Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) reflected erroneous 
updates during the processing of the Article 15 and mitigation 
process; however, the updates were corrected.  

DPSOE states that it is not clear which record the applicant 
wants corrected as the MilPDS reflects the following grade 
history:

Grade 		DOR	Effective Date

AB		13 Apr 04	13 Apr 04
A1C		28 May 04	26 Aug 04
SrA		28 Sep 06	28 Sep 06
A1C		 3 Dec 07	 3 Dec 07
SrA		 1 Apr 08	 1 Apr 08
AB		 7 Nov 08	 7 Nov 08

DPSOE states that no further corrections are required as MilPDS 
reflects the applicant held the grade of senior airman.

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

DFAS-IN recommends denial.  DFAS-IN states that a review of the 
applicant’s Master Military Pay Account (MMPA) reflects the debt 
is valid.

DFAS-IN states that the applicant’s debt consists of two parts.  
The first part, in the amount of $440.86 is for the recovery of 
the uncollected unearned portion of his Selective Enlistment 
Bonus (SEB), which is based on his separation program designator 
code (SPD) “JKQ,” for misconduct.  The Department of Defense 
(DoD) Financial Management Regulation, states that the recovery 
of the unearned portions of an enlistment and reenlistment bonus 
is required when a member does not complete the terms of 
enlistment and/or reenlistment.  The second part, in the amount 
of $2,235.66 is due to overpayment of military pay and 
allowances for the period of 28 Sep 06 through 6 Nov 08.  Due to 
the applicant’s disciplinary actions, posting to his MMPA were 
input well after the fact; however, the applicant was well aware 
of the rates of pay he should have been receiving.  

Since the adjustments to his pay were posted late it was 
necessary for the MMPA to collect the overpayment, thus causing 
the debt.  

The complete DFAS-IN evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit 
D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 21 Dec 12, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  As of this date, this office has not received a 
response.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a 
thorough review of the available evidence and the applicant’s 
complete submission, we find no evidence which would persuade us 
that his records should be disturbed.  While the applicant 
contends he was not overpaid, he has not provided sufficient 
evidence to override the rationale provided by DFAS.  Therefore, 
we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force 
offices of primary responsibility and DFAS 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.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2012-04975 in Executive Session on 25 Jul 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Vice Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Oct 12, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 19 Nov 12.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, DFAS-IN, undated, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Dec 12




								
								Vice Chair