RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00494 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His demotions to staff sergeant (SSgt) and technical sergeant (TSgt) be removed from his record and his rank be restored to master sergeant with an effective date of 1 Oct 07. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The witness statements were inconsistent, evidence was intentionally withheld from him and his attorney, the findings of the investigating officer were not factored into the final decision, the demotion process was not accomplished in accordance with the governing instruction, and he was not offered an Article 15 or court-martial proceedings. In support of his appeal the applicant provides copies of documents extracted from his military personnel records, a personal statement, a photograph, and his college degrees. Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of technical sergeant. On 19 Jun 08, he was demoted from MSgt to SSgt for failure to fulfill his noncommissioned officer (NCO) responsibilities. On 27 Jun 08, he requested an appeal of the demotion action due to pertinent testimony being intentionally withheld from his defense. His commander reviewed the request and recommended his rank be reinstated to TSgt. On 15 Sep 08, a legal review was conducted and the staff judge advocate found the case legally sufficient to support the demotion action and recommended his rank be reinstated to TSgt, noting that although he failed to fulfill his responsibilities as a MSgt, all of the facts and circumstances weigh in favor of his ability to satisfactorily fulfill his responsibilities as a TSgt. On 30 Sep 08, the applicant’s appeal was granted in part and his rank was reinstated to TSgt with an effective date of rank (DOR) of 19 Jun 08. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE noted there is no evidence of an error or an injustice in the processing of the demotion action. The actions taken against the applicant were permissible administrative actions taken at the discretion of his supervisors and commanders and within the scope of the governing instructions. His commander acted within his authority. The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant indicates that while he does not disagree with whether or not his commander acted within his authority, he does not believe the demotion action was a just punishment. He is fighting the demotion because there were events that preceded this injustice. He requests his entire 20-year career and impeccable record be considered and the demotion overturned. He believes the facts were being continuously overlooked at every level, and the focus should be whether his commander had the authority to levy such a harsh punishment. The question is was the punishment a just one. He further believes his punishment should have been the Letter of Reprimand to serve as a reminder that any occurrence of this nature or any other will not be tolerated and will be dealt with more severely. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case. The applicant acknowledges that his commander did not exceed his discretionary authority in demoting him; however, he believes the demotion action was not just and unduly harsh given his career record of performance and when weighing the total circumstances of his misconduct. We note that initially the applicant was demoted two grades to the grade of staff sergeant, but after his appeal, the commander restored him to the grade of technical sergeant. We are not persuaded that the commander’s final decision to demote the applicant by one grade was unjust, in error, or arbitrary and capricious. In fact, it appears the commander gave the applicant due process in coming to his decision. The evidence of record supports that the demotion action, with the exception of a minor error which was rectified, was processed in accordance with the governing instruction and was within the commander’s discretion. Therefore, 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 issue 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-00494 in Executive Session on 23 Sep 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-00494 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Feb 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 19 Mar 10. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 10. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.