They can not reject the part based on the 12.5 degree being out of tolerance with the tolerance block. The very fact that the angle is basic excludes the standard tolerance block. They can reject it based on the fact that it is miles off of the positional of .030 though. This drawing is way off but the way the datums precede the tolerance in the FCF tells me that this was drawn to conform to the 1973 ANSI standard.
Here are the issues I see with this drawing:
1.Where one pad is shown located from the center (of what?) using a toleranced dimension, that's wrong. Positionally located features are always basically related to the datums.
2. The .390+/-.070 dimension is located using position. This is also wrong as only features of size are positionally located. Profile would be a better choice for those particular features.
3. The diameter symbol in the FCF is not correct as pointed out by KENAT. There also needs to be a tertiary datum to orient the pattern. What is there is not sufficient.
Unless the 1973 standard actually allowed these kinds of things, I'd say you have a pretty bad drawing you have to deal with.
Powerhound, GDTP T-0419
Production Supervisor
Inventor 2008
Mastercam X2
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II