RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01202
		COUNSEL: NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be retired in the grade of master sergeant. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  He was honorably discharged and demoted to the grade of 
staff sergeant for supposedly falsifying Community College of 
the Air Force (CCAF) documents.  

2.  After he filed a Congressional Inquiry (CI) a pre-meditated 
Commander Directed Investigation (CDI) was initiated on 20 Jul 
05.  He was set-up by Chief Master Sergeant M----- and the 
United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR) Headquarters personnel 
in retaliation for filing a CI.

3.  He was asked to provide copies of his AF Form 623a, On-the-
Job Training Record – Continuation Sheet and certifications 
{sic} two weeks prior to his activation orders end date.  

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty; emails, VA Forms 10-0114R, VA Fax Transmittal; 
memorandums, and various other documents associated with his 
request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 26 Feb 04, the applicant attempted to steal a Digital Video 
Disc (DVD) and music Compact Disc (CD) from Walmart.  On 19 Apr 
04, he was found guilty in Fairborn, Ohio, Municipal Court of 
criminal theft, a misdemeanor, for attempting to steal a DVD and 
music CD from Walmart.  For this misconduct, he received a 
Letter of Reprimand (LOR).  

On 25 Mar 05, he submitted two forged Professional Military 
Education (PME) certificates to the 445 AW training office that 
falsely showed he completed the Noncommissioned Officer Academy 
(NCOA) by correspondence on 7 Mar 89, and the Senior 
Noncommissioned Officer Academy (SNCOA) by correspondence on 
16 Dec 93.  

On 1 May 05, the applicant was notified that the 445 AW/CC 
directed a CDI be initiated relating to his completion of the 
NCOA and SNCOA.  Specifically, the CDI was initiated based on a 
suspicion that the SNCOA certificate he submitted was not 
accurate.  He was restricted from all Reserve participation for 
pay and/or points, including Unit Training Assemblies (UTAs), 
annual tours, and mandays.  

Evidence was obtained that the applicant had not completed 
either course but, rather, had dis-enrolled from both courses 
numerous times for failing the exams.  Air University (AU) 
personnel also discovered several inaccuracies on the 
certificates submitted by the applicant, such as signatures by 
commanders and chief master sergeants who were not physically 
assigned to AU at the time the certificates were issued.  

On 7 Oct 05, the applicant received a LOR for submitting the 
forged certificates.

On 20 Jan 06, the applicant was notified of his commander’s 
intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under 
the provisions of AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement 
Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members 
for Misconduct – Commission of Serious Offense, Other Serious 
Offense with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) 
discharge characterization.  

On 31 Jan 06, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
Memorandum of Notification and submitted an Air Force Form 131, 
Application for Transfer to the Retired Reserve In Lieu Of an 
administrative discharge for cause.  On 15 Feb 06, the 445 
Aerospace Medicine Squadron Commander (445 AMDS/CC) and the 445 
AW/CC, both disapproved the applicant’s request for retirement 
from the Air Force Reserves.  

On 5 Mar 06, the Air Force Reserve Command Acting Staff Judge 
Advocate (AFRC/JAA) reviewed the case and found it legally 
sufficient and recommended the AFRC/CC forward the applicant’s 
retirement application to the Secretary of the Air Force 
Personnel Council (SAFPC) with a recommendation that it be 
disapproved so that the administrative discharge process could 
continue. 

On 24 Jul 06, the applicant was demoted from the grade of master 
sergeant to staff sergeant.

On 29 Aug 06, AFRC/CV recommended disapproval of the applicant’s 
request to transfer to the Retired Reserve in lieu of an 
administrative discharge and forwarded the case to SAFPC for 
final decision.  
On 28 Sep 06, SAFPC recommended disapproval.  SAFPC stated that 
the applicant’s request to transfer to the Retired Reserves was 
not warranted given the nature of his misconduct.  SAFPC stated 
that he displayed a fundamental lack of integrity by forging 
official military documents and shoplifting, which constitutes a 
significant departure from the minimum standards of conduct for 
members of the Air Force.  

On 2 Oct 06, the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) disapproved 
the applicant’s application for retirement submitted on 31 Jan 
06 and stated that retirement at this time was not considered in 
the best interest in the Air Force. 

On 18 Oct 06, the applicant was notified that the SAF 
disapproved his application to transfer to the Retired Reserve.  
The specific reason for disapproval was the previous separation 
action initiated on 20 Jan 06, was being resumed to separate the 
applicant under the provisions of AFI 36-3209, Separation and 
Retirement procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force 
Reserve Members for  Misconduct, Commission of Serious Offense, 
Other Serious Offenses. 

On 1 Nov 06, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
Notification of Resumption of Separation Action. 

On 2 Nov 06, the applicant was discharged from the AFRC in the 
grade of staff sergeant.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/A1K recommends denial.  A1K states that the applicant’s 
retirement request was considered and disapproved by the SAF.  
Subsequently, the applicant was discharged.  

The SAF action is presently, as it was at the time of the SAF 
approval, supported by AFRC.

The applicant has not provided any information or data that 
would change the commands position on his retirement request or 
discharge from the Air Force Reserve.

The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The statement by AFRC/AIK which states that he should have been 
allowed to retire in Jan 06 is inaccurate.  He wants the respect 
and dignity to retire after 23 years of military service and to 
be eligible for his earned retirement pension.  

He was never afforded the option to retire in person at the base 
Military Personnel Flight (MPF) because of the restrictions 
listed on the CDI notification letter.  He believes the CDI was 
established due to a disagreement in the management of the Air 
Reserve Technicians (ART) regarding work ethics, fraud, waste 
and abuse as stated in his CI.

He can provided witnesses to corroborate the wrath and 
humiliation he endured.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.  

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case and do not find that it supports a determination that 
he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  While the 
applicant’s assertions are noted, he has not provided 
substantial evidence to support his request for retirement in 
the grade of MSgt.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force OPR and adopt its rationale as 
the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the 
victim of an error or injustice.  In addition, the applicant 
alleges that the CDI was established due to a disagreement in 
the management of the ARTs regarding work ethics, fraud, waste 
and abuse.  However, he did not submit direct evidence, such as 
an Inspector General (IG) or Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) 
report to support his assertions. Therefore, 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.  

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 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-2013-01202 in Executive Session on 9 Jan 2014, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Available Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 15 Jul 13. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 13.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Aug 13.




								
								Panel Chair

4


5