RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01250
		
	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.	Her enlistment be extended to allow her the opportunity for 
promotion. 

2.	In the alternative, if her request is not granted prior to 
her separation, she request to be reinstated into the Air Force.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 30 September 2010, she pled guilty at a special court-martial 
and was punished with a reduction in rank, forfeiture of $500 
pay per month for 6 months, 45 days hard labor without 
confinement and 90 days restriction to base.  She was accepted 
into the Return to Duty Program which began on 7 March 2011.  

After months of rigorous rehabilitation, she completed the 
program and was retained in the Air Force.  Following the 
program, she was placed on a one-year probationary period during 
which she could not wear rank or receive any disciplinary 
actions.

After arriving at her new base with her new Air Force Specialty 
Code (AFSC), she sought out volunteer opportunities and strived 
to make a lasting impression on her intent to work hard and 
serve honorably even though she had been court-martialed.

She went through technical school training and completed the 
course with an overall 85 percent average.  She completed the 
second course with an overall 90 percent average.  Once she 
returned to her base, she was signed off on upgrade training 
tasks in the minimum allotted time and received a score of 
87 percent on her end-of-course test.  She completed her 
community college of the Air Force associates degree.  She also 
volunteered in the local community and with national charities.

She completed the probationary period which enabled her to wear 
rank.  She requested her rank be back dated to her punishment 
date; however, that request was denied.  Due to the extensive 
time that she was unable to wear rank, she did not have enough 
time-in-grade for reenlistment eligibility.

She has acquired maturity and experience throughout her career 
and this experience. She accepted responsibility for her 
actions.  Additionally, she has consistently shown that she is a 
highly motivated airman.  She finds it quizzical the Air Force 
would invest so much time, effort and money into her retention 
and separate her without allowing her to gain full potential in 
her new AFSC.  She hopes the Board considers her drive to 
achieve great things and to be a successful asset to the Air 
Force.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides her RTDP 
approval and character statements.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 28 April 2009.  
During a special court-martial on 30 September 2010, she pled 
guilty and was found guilty of dereliction of duty by wrongfully 
drinking alcohol under the age of 21, in violation of Article 
92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and wrongfully 
using cocaine, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ.  A panel of 
officers sentenced her to be reduced to the grade of E-1, 
forfeiture of $500 pay per month for 6 months, hard labor 
without confinement for 45 days and restriction to base for 
90 days.  

Documentation submitted by the applicant shows that she was 
approved for return to duty by the Air Force Clemency and Parole 
Board (AFC & PB) on 18 July 2011. 

She was discharged from the Air Force on 27 April 2013 after 
serving 4 years of active duty service.  Her narrative reason 
for separation was listed as completion of required active 
service and her service was characterized as honorable.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  The applicant does not believe 
there was an error or injustice.  She supports her request by 
pointing to the Air Force Clemency and Parole Board’s decision 
to let her serve the rest of her 4 year enlistment instead of 
being involuntarily separated after her court-martial 
conviction.  However, the AFC & PB approved her request within 
the confines of the return to duty program that offers selected 
court-martialed enlisted personnel with exceptional potential 
the opportunity to be returned to active duty and have their 
punitive discharge, if adjudged, remitted.

The applicant currently has a reentry code of 4E, grade is 
airman first class or below and airman completed 31 or more 
months (55 months for a 6–year enlistee), if a first-term 
airman; or, grade is airman first class or below and the airman 
is a second-term or career airman, which will still apply on her 
date of separation and prevent her from staying in the Air 
Force.

The applicant’s approval to be returned to duty was not a 
decision to allow her to extend her career past her enlistment, 
but to allow her the opportunity to complete her current 
enlistment and avoid a punitive discharge.  The applicant’s 
circumstances are the same as hundreds of other Air Force 
members that are forced to separate that also have RE code 4E 
based on their time-in-service and grade which stemmed from 
disciplinary infractions.  The difference is most of their 
infractions did not lead to being court-martialed and being 
eligible to apply for and complete the RTDP if convicted; being 
returned to duty should not afford the applicant the opportunity 
to extend her enlistment for the purpose of obtaining the 
appropriate grade and becoming eligible to continue her career, 
when others who possess RE code 4E do not have the same 
opportunity.  

Although the applicant will be forced to separate, she will have 
an honorable character of service which is what the RTDP allowed 
her to achieve versus receiving a punitive discharge with most 
likely a lesser character of service.   

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial.  The RTDP is the Secretarial 
implementation of 10 U.S.C. 953 (Remission or suspension of 
sentence; restoration to duty; reenlistment).  The RTDP gives 
airmen the opportunity to be returned to active duty and have a 
punitive discharge, if adjudged, remitted; it does not provide 
for the restoration of rank. 

AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, governs 
eligibility for promotion.  That instruction contains no 
provision enabling the applicant to regain rank lost as a result 
of a criminal conviction.  Completion of the RTDP does not 
guarantee return to duty, it only requires airmen returned to 
duty be allowed to serve at least one year before separation.

The applicant separated from the Air Force on 27 April 2013 due 
to a reenlistment code of 4E.  Based on her date of rank to 
airman of 18 July 2012, she would not have been eligible for 
promotion to airman first class until 18 May 2013, provided no 
ineligibility conditions existed and she was recommended by her 
commander.  

While the applicant successfully completed the RTDP, there was 
no error or injustice in her case.

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 28 June 2013 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.

________________________________________________________________

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.  The 
applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and her 
contentions were duly noted.  However, we do not find the 
applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in 
support of her appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the 
rationale provided by Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility.  Therefore, we agree with their opinion and 
recommendation 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 actionable 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-2013-01250 in Executive Session on 3 December 2013 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 9 Apr 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 1 May 13.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jun 13.