RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03463
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.	He be reinstated to active duty (Examiner’s Note:  In his 
rebuttal to the advisory opinions, the applicant amended his 
application to include this request).

2.	In the alternative, he requests that his Reentry (RE) code of 
2X (first-term, second term or career airman considered but not 
selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment 
Program (SRP)) be changed to 1J (eligible to reenlist-elected 
separation or discharge) to allow his reenlistment in the 
military.

3.	His separation code be changed from LGH (non-retention on 
active duty) to LBK (completion of required active service).

4.	He be given full separation pay, rather than half.

________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His separation under the Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13) Date of 
Separation (DOS) Rollback Program for serving on the control 
roster, from 29 Nov 12 to 28 May 13 was unjust. 

His Unfavorable Information File (UIF) action and his placement 
on the control roster were unjust and should be removed.  On 
27 Dec 12, his citation of petit theft was dismissed in civilian 
court.  Even though his commander was notified of the dismissal, 
he choose not to remove him from the control roster or remove 
the UIF; which is in violation of AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable 
Information File (UIF) Program, para 1.9.2.1.  .

In addition, the control roster rationale section on the AF IMT 
1058, Unfavorable Information File, and the Letter of Reprimand 
(LOR) make reference to a previous Article 15 that he received 
in a previous enlistment, which is not in accordance with 
AFI 36-2907, para 1.4.4. 

The statement made on the AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment 
Program (SRP) Consideration for Airman in the Regular Air 
Force/Air Force Reserve, dated 13 Mar 13, is false as no such 
larceny was committed.  He was notified the control roster 
action automatically placed him on the FY13 Rollback Program.  
He submitted an appeal to his commander requesting that he be 
removed from the UIF and the control roster.  However, his 
appeal was denied.  

On 28 Mar 13, he submitted a Rollback appeal to the Military 
Personnel Flight (MPF) to identify the error on the 
AF Form 418 and issues with the LOR, UIF, and control roster.  
On 23 Apr 13, his appeal was denied and there were no 
corrections or reasoning listed.  

On 15 Jul 13, he was separated from the Air Force.  He had no 
intention of leaving the Air Force but was kicked out as a 
result of inconsistent, prejudice, and untimely use of non-
punitive administrative tools.

The FY13 DOS Rollback Program Personnel Services Delivery 
Memorandum (PSDM 13-14) and separation orders identified the 
separation code to be entered as LBK and not LGH.  He contacted 
the Separations office at Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA) Randolph 
to correct this issue, but they were unable to manually change 
separation code on DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty, because the automatic LGH separation 
code was loaded in their system.  They were unable.  

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of the 
FY13 Enlisted DOS Rollback Program (PSDM 13-14); DD Form 214, 
issued in conjunction with his 15 Jul 13 separation; AF IMT 100, 
Request and Authorization for Separation; AF IMT 973, Request 
and Authorization for Change of Administrative Orders, dated 
6 May 13 and various other supporting documents.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 August 
2009 for a period of five years, with entitlement to a Zone B, 
Multiple 2 bonus.

He received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for being cited by the 
police department for attempting the theft of vehicle lights.  
As a result, on 19 Nov 12 an AF Form 1058, Unfavorable 
Information File (UIF) Action was established and the LOR filed 
therein.  In addition, he was placed on the control roster.    
On 19 Nov 12, the applicant acknowledged receipt of commander's 
intent to establish an UIF and control roster.  The applicant 
indicated that he did not intend to provide information to be 
considered before the final decision was made.  The commander's 
final decision to place the applicant on the control roster was 
made on 29 Nov 12.  The applicant's control roster expiration 
date was 29 May 13.  Since the applicant was placed on the 
control roster his RE code would reflect 4I (Serving on a 
Control roster) until 29 May 13.

On 13 Mar 13, applicant's commander completed an AF IMT 418 and 
decided not to select the applicant for reenlistment under the 
FY13 DOS Rollback Program.  On 13 Mar 13, the applicant 
acknowledged his non-selection for reenlistment and on 14 Mar 
13, rendered his intent not to appeal the decision.  Based on 
the commander's non-recommendation for retention, the applicant 
was released from active duty.  

On 15 Jul 13, the applicant was separated under the FY13 DOS 
Rollback Program, with a RE code of 2X; a narrative reason for 
separation of non-retention on active duty and separation code 
of LGH, with half-separation pay.  He was credited with 
10 years, 10 months, and 18 days of active service.  

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial.  DPSIM notes that procedurally, 
the LOR, UIF, and control roster actions were administered 
correctly and there is no indication the commander was without 
authority in administering actions or continuing the applicant 
on the control roster.  It is not within their authority to 
determine if the commander's actions were just or unjust.  

On 29 Apr 13, RE code 4I was updated to 2X due to a mandatory 
update for the DOS Rollback program.  The applicant provided 
Judgment of Dismissal documentation, dated 27 Dec 12, stating 
“NOWTHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the criminal complaint 
filed against the Defendant [applicant] is DIMISSED for the 
following reason: State's Motion to Dismiss granted by the 
Court.”  

In accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2907, paragraph 2.1 "The control 
roster is a rehabilitative tool for commanders to use. 
Commanders use the control roster to set up a 6-month 
observation period (HQ AFRC or HQ ARPC may establish longer 
observation periods, not to exceed 12 months, for Reserve 
personnel if deemed appropriate) for individuals whose duty 
performance is substandard or who fail to meet or maintain Air 
Force standards of conduct, bearing, and integrity, on or off 
duty."  That being said, the commander was within his authority 
to place the applicant on the control roster for failing to 
maintain standards.  He was within the six months from the date 
of the action (20 Oct 12) to establish an UIF/control roster for 
the attempted theft of the vehicle lights IAW paragraph 1.4.4. 
IAW PSDM 13-14, FY13 Enlisted DOS Rollback Program; “RE 4I or 
AAC16 (must expire on or after PSDM release date, must complete 
an AF Form 418 NLT 29 Mar 13.”  Since the applicant's RE code 
reflected a 4I until 29 May 13, the commander was in his right 
to make him ineligible for reenlistment on the AF Form 418.

The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change his separation code.  Based on the documentation on file 
in the master personnel records, the release from active duty 
was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements 
of the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) memorandum and was 
within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant 
did not provide any evidence of an error or injustice that 
occurred in the separation processing.  The applicant’s 
character of service is correct as indicated on the DD Form 214.

IAW the SecAF memorandum dated 31 Jan 13, "Airmen with six or 
more years of active service and less than 20 years of active 
service not serving in their initial term of enlistment are 
authorized one-half separation pay.  The initial term of 
enlistment is the service obligation that the applicant incurred 
upon initial enlistment into the Air Force."  The records show 
the applicant had more than six years but less than 20 years of 
service and was not in his initial enlistment at the time of the 
FY13 DOS rollback program but on a subsequent enlistment; 
therefore, the authorization for one-half separation pay is 
correct.

The SPD code of "LBK" as reflected on the applicant's separation 
orders was correct at the time the orders were produced.  It was 
a temporary code that HQ USAF authorized to reflect members 
receiving half separation pay until SPD code "LGH" could be 
updated into the military personnel database and reflected on 
all automated DD Forms 214 produced under this guidance.  Once 
code "LGH" was in the database and capable of being produced on 
the automated DD Forms 214, it replaced code "LBK" as the code 
to use for half separation pay.  As a result, the separation 
orders do not reflect the same code as the DD Form 214, even 
though they both mean half separation pay under this guidance.  
If the Board deems necessary, DPSOR can amend the separation 
orders to match the correct code that is indicated on the 
applicant's DD Form 214.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change the RE code.  The applicant's RE code of 2X was based on 
his non-selection for reenlistment.  On 29 Apr 13, the applicant 
acknowledged the denial of his appeal.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s original package was to address the separation 
code issue and to fix his separation pay resulting from his 
wrongful placement on the control roster.  He would ultimately 
like to be reinstated back into the USAF. 

According to the FY13 DOS Rollback Program (PSDM 13-14), 
personnel separated under this program will be assigned a SPD 
code on their DD Form 214 reflecting “Completion of Required 
Active Service."  Due to him being on the control roster he was 
automatically placed on FY13 DOS rollback program and if were 
not for this program, he would have been able to remain in the 
Air Force for the remainder of his enlistment in Sep 14.

In further support of his appeal, the applicant provides a 
personal statement and resubmits documents that were provided in 
his initial application extracted from his Military Personnel 
Record (MPR).

The applicant’s complete response in further support of his 
appeal, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

________________________________________________________________

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 warranting 
corrective action of the applicant’s reason for separation, 
separation code, separation pay, and the RE code.  The applicant 
contends that actions were not processed in accordance with the 
governing instructions.  However, the applicant’s case has 
undergone a thorough review by the Air Force Offices of Primary 
Responsibility (OPRs) and he has not provided any evidence, in 
our view, that will override their assessment of the case.  In 
this respect, while we note that the PSDM for the FY13 DOS 
Rollback noted that members should be separated with a reason 
for separation of completion of required active service; as 
noted by the OPR, a memorandum from the SecAF states that LBK 
was a temporary code that was being used at the time of the 
applicant’s separation and was only used for the purposes of the 
rollback.  Both codes, LBK and LGH, only provide for half 
separation pay.  Therefore, since the applicant had completed 
more than six years of service but less than 20, based on SecAF 
memorandum, at the time of his separation, the correct code was 
LGH.  Based on the evidence the applicant was separated with the 
appropriate narrative reason for separation and corresponding 
separation code.  Additionally, we find no error with respect to 
the type of separation pay he received as a result of being 
separated under the FY13 DOS Rollback Program.  In view of the 
above and 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 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-2013-03463 in Executive Session on 17 Jun 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Jul 13, w/atch. 
    Exhibit B.  Extracts from Applicant's Master Personnel
                Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 3 Jan 14.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 21 Jan 14.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 13 Feb 14.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Feb 14.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Mar 14, w/atchs.