RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04992 

 

 COUNSEL: 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. The 15 March 2011 and 10 April 2012 Letters of Reprimand 
(LOR) be removed from his records. 

 

2. The Unfavorable Information File (UIF) and Control Roster 
actions be declared void and removed from his records. 

 

3. His grade of staff sergeant (E-5) be restored. 

 

4. His Reentry (RE) code of 2X (1st term, 2nd term or career 
airman considered but not selected for reenlistment) be changed 
to allow him reentry into military service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. His first sergeant had issues with him for unknown reasons 
since his arrival on station. Although he answered his 
inquiries truthfully, he was accused of lying. His spouse filed 
a complaint against the Army & Air Force Exchange Service 
(AAFES) in regards to price challenging. In retaliation of his 
spouse’s complaint, his command initiated an investigation 
against him by compiling a yearlong price checking match through 
AAFES against him. 

 

2. He was forced to respond to allegations stated in a LOR 
issued on 10 April 2012 without being given an opportunity to 
review the evidence against him; specifically, the Report of 
Investigation (ROI). The investigation was unfounded and his 
command did not thoroughly investigate the allegations made by 
AAFES. He was repeatedly denied access to the report. He would 
have had a better chance to dispute the contents of the ROI, had 
he been given an opportunity to review the ROI. He believes 
actions were unjust and administered in a premeditative fashion. 
This is evident by the multiples errors, inaccuracies, unfounded 
and contradictory claims annotated in the ROI. 

 

3. His denial of reenlistment was done solely to ensure his 
participation in the Force Shaping Rollback Program because the 
action was initiated two years prior to his eligibility for 


reenlistment. The action was initiated by an individual who was 
relatively new to the squadron and did not know him. The 
superintendent who knew of his work ethic was asked to initiate 
the denial for reenlistment, but he declined to do so. 

 

4. The only two unsatisfactory FA scores he received in nearly 
six years were added to the action taken against him to 
embellish a negative imagine of himself. His FA failures were 
due to an ankle injury he sustained. However, since those 
failures, he has successfully passed two FAs. His command chose 
the most severe non-punitive actions against him and he was 
informed by the military personnel flight (MPF) that these 
actions were going to go through, no matter what response he 
provided. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted 
in the Regular Air Force on 14 September 2004. 

 

On 4 March 2011, the applicant participated in a fitness 
assessment (FA) and was only exempt from the cardio component. 
He attained a composite score of 61.00, constituting an 
unsatisfactory score, for which he received a letter of 
counseling (LOC) on 11 March 2011. 

 

On 11 March 2011, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the LOC 
and, on 14 March 2011, waived his right to respond. 

 

On 15 March 2011, the applicant was informed that the LOC would 
be maintained in his personnel information file (PIF). 

 

On 15 March 2011, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand 
(LOR) for allowing his spouse to accompany him from Tyndall Air 
Force Base (AFB), Florida to Edwards AFB, California in 
violation of her probation and, when questioned on this fact, 
falsely stated he had a letter from his spouse’s attorney 
indicating the charges against her were dropped, in violation of 
Article 107 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 

 

On 15 March 2011, the applicant acknowledged receipt and elected 
to submit written comments. After considering the applicant’s 
response, his commander determined the LOR should be maintained 
and placed in the applicant’s PIF. 

 

On 20 May 2011, the applicant participated in a FA and was only 
exempt from the cardio component. He attained a composite score 
of 70.75, constituting an unsatisfactory score, for which he 
received a LOR. 


On 20 May 2011, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the LOR 
and elected to submit documents in support of his rebuttal 
response. 

 

On 24 May 2011, the applicant’s superintendent indicated he 
reviewed the applicant’s written matters in response to the LOR 
and decided to stand by his initial decision and he did not 
intend to place the LOR in a UIF. 

 

On 17 December 2011, the applicant’s spouse filed a complaint 
against AAFES because the price match challenge under $10.00 was 
not handled correctly. Specifically, the store manager violated 
corporate policy by verifying a price under $10.00, by calling 
the store. 

 

On 19 December 2011, the complaint was forwarded to the general 
manager because the applicant and his spouse were conducting 
fraudulent price challenges. 

 

On 2 February 2012, an incident notification was initiated 
against the applicant for the alleged incident of theft that 
occurred from 5 February 2011 through 10 October 2011 at 
multiple AAFES locations on Edwards AFB, CA, by fraudulently 
exploiting the AAFES price match challenge. 

 

On 21 February 2012, the applicant was made aware of the 
allegations against him. He invoked his right to legal counsel 
and refused to make an oral or written statement. 

 

On 28 February 2012, the United States Air Force Security 
Police’s Report of Investigation (ROI), in response to larceny 
and wrongful appropriation, and frauds against the United 
States, was closed and forwarded to the appropriate authorities 
for further action. 

 

On 9 April 2012, an AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program 
(SRP) Consideration for Airmen in the Regular Air Force/Air 
Force Reserve, was issued indicating the applicant was not 
recommended for reenlistment. 

 

On 10 April 2012, the applicant acknowledged receipt of his 
notification of reenlistment eligibility. 

 

On 10 April 2012, the applicant received a LOR for conduct 
unbecoming of a Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO). Investigation 
disclosed that the applicant defrauded AAFES of $959.30 from 
February 2011 through October 2011 through fraudulently abusing 
the “price challenge” system by lying about off-base sales to 
receive discounts on base. 

 

On 10 April 2012, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the LOR 
and his intent to submit a statement. 

 


On 10 April 2012, the applicant was not selected for 
reenlistment. The applicant’s commander indicated his 
performance has been called into question. Between his FA 
failures and integrity issues by defrauding AAFES, the commander 
lost faith in the applicant and could not endorse his 
reenlistment. 

 

On 10 April 2012, the applicant’s commander notified him of his 
intent to recommend his demotion to the grade of senior airman 
(E-4). The specific reasons for the action were his failure to 
fulfill non-commissioned officer (NCO) responsibilities by 
fraudulently abusing the AAFES “price challenge” system and 
providing a false official statement in regards to bringing his 
spouse to California in violation of her probation. 

 

On 10 April 2012, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
proposed demotion action. 

 

On 10 April 2012, the applicant was issued an AF Form 1058, Unfavorable Information File Action (UIF), indicating the 
commander’s intent to establish a UIF and place him on the 
control roster based on the 10 April 2012 LOR for conduct 
unbecoming an NCO. 

 

On 10 April 2012, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
UIF/control roster and his intent to provide information to be 
considered before a final decision is made. 

 

On 16 April 2012, the applicant indicated that he consulted with 
counsel, he did not concur with the proposed demotion action, he 
elected to submit written materials on his behalf, and requested 
a personal hearing before the initiating commander. 

 

On 16 April 2012, the applicant submitted a response to the LOR. 
He indicated that he never knowingly or intentionally falsified 
any of the price challenges and that during some of this period 
he was a secret shopper for AAFES. The commander maintained the 
LOR and decided to establish the UIF to document any UIF/Control 
Roster decisions and place the applicant on the control roster. 
He filed the LOR in the UIF. 

 

On 19 April 2012, the applicant acknowledged receipt and 
understanding of the placement of the LOR in an UIF and his 
placement on the Control Roster. 

 

On an undated indorsement to the 10 April 2012 Notification of 
Demotion Action, the commander recommended that the applicant be 
demoted to the grade of E-4. The applicant did not concur with 
the proposed demotion action and presented matters on his 
behalf. 

 

On 20 April 2012, the applicant’s reenlistment eligibility code 
was updated from 1M (eligible to reenlist) to 2X. 

 


On 30 April 2012, the applicant appealed his denial of 
reenlistment. 

On 1 May 2012, the applicant was directed to be demoted to the 
grade of senior airman, effective 1 May 2012, with a date of 
rank (DOR) of 1 May 2012. 

 

On 7 May 2012, the applicant was briefed on the decision to 
process the proposed demotion action and acknowledged that he 
understood that he has been demoted to the grade of E-4, 
effective 1 May 2012, with a DOR of 1 May 2012. He indicated 
that he intended to appeal the decision. 

 

On 7 May 2012, the applicant requested a copy of the ROI in 
regards to a complaint made against him by AAFES. 

 

On 9 May 2012, the applicant’s request for a copy of the ROI was 
processed. 

 

On 9 May 2012, the applicant submitted an additional response to 
his denial of reenlistment and demotion action because he 
indicated that he just received the ROI. 

 

On 31 May 2012, the applicant’s appeal to the denial of his 
reenlistment was denied. 

 

On 31 May 2012, after review and consideration of the 
applicant’s appeal and supporting documentation to his demotion 
action, the applicant’s appeal was denied and he was directed to 
be demoted to the grade of senior airman. 

 

On 13 July 2012, the applicant filed an Article 138 complaint 
seeking redress from the wing commander and if not accepted 
forwarded to the next level, due to the investigation of a price 
matching scheme. He requested his rank to be restored, testing 
for technical sergeant (E-6) to be scored, denial of 
reenlistment overturned and his LOR/UIF and control roster 
rescinded, as well as, a permanent change in station (PCS). He 
requested to be placed on administrative hold so that he would 
not be forced out by the DOS rollback and a decision made on his 
redress. 

 

On 3 August 2012, the applicant filed an Article 138 complaint 
seeking redress from the United States Air Force Warfare Center 
Commander (USAFWC/CC), in which he sought redress because he was 
never given an opportunity to obtain legitimate facts regarding 
claims against him. He requested to be placed on administrative 
hold for time to submit a congressional complaint and retain a 
civilian attorney. 

 

On 12 August 2012, the wing commander denied the applicant’s 
request for redress, indicating the actions taken by the 
applicant’s squadron and group commander’s were supported by the 
evidence and were appropriate for his misconduct and inability 
to consistently uphold standards. 


 

On 26 August 2012, the USAFWC/CC concluded the applicant had no 
basis for redress and denied his request, also concluding the 
actions taken against him were not improper, arbitrary, 
capricious, or unfair and were within the legitimate authority 
of the squadron and group commanders. The applicant was 
informed that this would be the final action and any further 
documentation submitted would be returned. 

 

On 10 September 2012, the applicant responded to the USAFWC/CC, 
indicating it was only his intent to forward the Article 138 
complaint to be placed on administrative hold. 

 

On 10 September 2012, the applicant filed an Article 138 
complaint seeking redress from ACC/CC, indicating everything 
that he has provided in his defense had not been fairly 
considered. 

 

On 19 September 2012, by authority of the Secretary of the Air 
Force, his 3 August 2012 request for redress filed under Article 
138 was denied as the actions taken by the command were 
determined to be appropriate to the circumstances. Therefore, 
the denial of the applicant’s request for redress was sustained 
and this constituted the final action on the applicant’s Article 
138 complaint. 

 

On 26 September 2012, the USAFWC/CC, notified the applicant of 
the final action on his Article 138 complaint. The applicant 
was informed that there was no redress to his complaint and 
further documents submitted would be returned. 

 

On 29 September 2012, the applicant was furnished an honorable 
discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “Completion 
of Required Active Service,” along with a separation program 
designator (SPD) code of “LBK” and RE code of “2X.” He was 
authorized severance pay and credited with 8 years and 16 days 
of total active service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial, indicating the applicant’s LORs, 
UIF, and control roster were administered correctly and in 
accordance with AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information File (UIF) 
Program. These disciplinary actions are discretionary tools 
used by commanders and the applicant has provided no evidence of 
an error or injustice. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice with respect to his denial or reenlistment 
and resultant RE code as both were in compliance with the 


prescribing instructions. Based on the applicant’s placement on 
the control roster, he was identified as being eligible for the 
DOS rollback program. The majority of members separated under 
the rollback program receive early selective reenlistment 
consideration. In this case, the applicant’s commander made the 
decision to utilize the rollback guidance by non-selecting him 
for reenlistment. In accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistments 
in the USAF, commanders have selective reenlistment selection or 
non-selection authority. The Selective Reenlistment Program 
(SRP) considers the members Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) 
ratings, unfavorable information from any substantiated source, 
the airman’s willingness to comply with Air Force standards 
and/or the airman’s ability (or lack thereof) to meet required 
training and duty performance levels. Also, the rollback 
program allows commanders to conduct early SRP consideration for 
airmen with certain reasons/codes and the applicant’s RE code 4I 
(serving on control roster) was one of the eligible RE codes for 
early reenlistment consideration. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial, indicating the demotion action 
taken against the applicant was procedurally correct and there 
is no evidence there were any irregularities or that the case 
was mishandled in any way. The applicant was demoted from staff 
sergeant (E-5) to senior airman (E-4) due to his failure to 
fulfill his NCO responsibilities. The action taken was at the 
discretion of the applicant’s supervisors/commanders in 
accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, 
and, as such, the applicant should not be restored to the grade 
of staff sergeant (E-5). 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice with respect to the reason for the 
applicant’s separation. Due to the applicant’s denial of 
reenlistment, he became eligible for the FY12 Enlistment DOS 
Rollback Program, along with his DOS/expiration of term of 
service being involuntarily accelerated. The applicant’s 
discharge was correctly administered on the basis of his RE code 
of 2X (denied reenlistment), the commander’s completion of the 
applicant’s selective reenlistment program (SRP), and the 
Personnel Services Delivery Memorandum (PSDM) 12-37, dated 
20 April 2012. 

 

The effective date of the action which caused the eligibility 
condition, RE Code, is the determining factor for inclusion in 
the rollback program. Based on the documentation on file in the 
master personnel records, the discharge, to include his 
separation code and RE code, was consistent with the procedural 
and substantive requirements of the discharge manual and was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority. 

 


A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit F. 

AFPC/JA recommends denial, indicating there is evidence to 
support each action taken against the applicant. Although the 
applicant’s request for relief does not appear to be based on a 
claim of error regarding the administrative procedures, he does 
claim there is no evidence to support the misconduct on which 
these particular actions were based. To the contrary, there is 
evidence to support the commander’s determination regarding the 
status of the applicant’s spouse. Also, he never provided 
documentation to substantiate that he did not provide false 
information. The FA assessments correctly reflected his 
exemption from the cardio portion and were not used against him 
as he suggests. The applicant was represented by counsel and 
responded to each action, as well as filed Article 138 
complaints seeking redress for the wrongs he perceived to be 
taken against him. Nevertheless, his complaints were denied at 
multiple levels of command, with the Secretary of the Air Force 
taking the final action and denying his request for redress. 
Each commander and appellate authority acted well within their 
discretion in determining whether the evidence supported 
administrative action. Although the applicant may disagree with 
the evidence and actions taken, it does not equate to an error, 
but a disagreement. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit G. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant reiterates his argument that things were regularly 
overlooked and the investigation was not substantiated. The 
administrative actions taken against him were not meant to be 
rehabilitative; if they were, he would not have been made 
eligible for early separation and less adverse actions could 
have been taken. He had an unblemished military record until 
his arrival to Edwards AFB, CA and had a confrontation with his 
first sergeant. In support of his response, the applicant 
provides an expanded statement and copies of documents 
supporting his assertion that the charges against his spouse 
were indeed dropped. 

 

A complete copy of the applicant’s response, with attachments, 
is at Exhibit I. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. After 
careful consideration of applicant's request and the available 
evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or 
injustice to warrant corrective action. The facts and opinions 
stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on the 
evidence of record and have not been adequately rebutted by the 
applicant. While the applicant has provided documentation 
indicating that charges against his spouse were dropped, which 
he believes should compel the removal of the 15 March 2011 
Letter of Reprimand (LOR), said LOR did not form any part of the 
basis for the contested actions (i.e. Unfavorable Information 
File (UIF), Control Roster, demotion, denial of reenlistment). 
Ultimately, the applicant was denied reenlistment because his 
performance was called into question due to substantiated 
allegations of repeatedly defrauding the Army & Air Force 
Exchange Service (AAFES) and fitness assessment failures. Since 
he was denied reenlistment, the applicant was appropriately 
selected as a candidate for the date of separation (DOS) 
rollback program, resulting in his involuntary honorable 
discharge. In our view, the applicant was afforded full due 
process, to include multiple requests for redress under Article 
138 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), where the 
contested actions were subjected to scrutiny at multiple levels 
of command and repeatedly found to be legally sufficient and 
appropriate to the circumstances. Absent persuasive evidence 
the applicant was denied rights to which he was entitled, 
appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate 
standards were not applied, we find no basis to disturb the 
existing record. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2012-04992 in Executive Session on 30 Jul 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-04992 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 October 2012, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 30 November 2012. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 17 December 2012. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 23 January 2013. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 14 March 2013, w/atch. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 15 April 2013. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Nov 10. 

 Exhibit I. Letters, Applicant, dated 1 May 2013 and 

 10 May 2013, w/atch. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair