RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00643

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His highest rank of technical sergeant (TSgt/E-6) be reinstated.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is the victim of an injustice as he served satisfactorily in 
the grade of TSgt, until he was administratively demoted to the 
grade of staff sergeant (SSgt/E-5).  He was told that he would 
receive his grade of TSgt after six months of good conduct.  He 
has paid for his crimes and learned from his mistake.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted 
in the Regular Air Force on 22 Jan 93.

On 1 Feb 13, the applicant retired from the Air Force in the 
grade of SSgt and was credited with 20 years and 9 months of 
total active service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force which is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice.  On 24 May 05, the applicant’s commander 
initiated an Article 15 for resisting arrest and being drunk and 
disorderly, in violation of Articles 95 and 134 of the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), respectively.  As a result, his 
punishment consisted of a suspended reduction to the grade of 
SSgt, forfeiture of $300 per month for 2 months, and a 
reprimand. 

On 18 Jan 09, the applicant was arrested for Driving Under the 
Influence (DUI).  As a result, on 31 Mar 09, his commander 
initiated an administrative demotion action, in accordance with 
AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, for failure to 
fulfill Non-Commissioned Officer responsibilities. 

On 4 May 09, the applicant’s Group Commander approved the 
demotion action.  The applicant appealed the decision and on 23 
Jun 09, the appeal request was denied and he was demoted to the 
grade of SSgt, with an effective date of rank (DOR) of 4 May 09.

On 16 Feb 12, the applicant initiated a request for retirement. 
Under 10 USC § 8964, Higher grade after 30 years of service; 
warrant officers and enlisted members, an enlisted member may 
“be advanced on the retired list to the highest grade in which 
he served on active duty satisfactorily” as determined by the 
Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF).  As required in AFI 36-3203, 
Service Retirements, paragraph 7.4, AFPC/DPSOR requested a 
Satisfactory Service Determination to establish the applicant’s 
grade on the retired list.  

On 14 Jan 13, a review was conducted by the Secretary of the Air 
Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) under the authority delegated by 
the SECAF, which determined the applicant did not serve 
satisfactorily in any higher grade and would therefore not be 
advanced to his former grade under the provisions of 10 USC § 
8964.

The applicant was afforded nonjudicial punishment for his first 
alcohol-related offense and allowed sufficient opportunity to 
correct his behavior.  The demotion action following his second 
alcohol-related offense was warranted and he received 
appropriate consideration for grade advancement.  He stated his 
commander told him that he would receive his rank back after a 
6-month period of good conduct; however, the applicant has no 
evidence to support his claim.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation, with attachments, 
is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 19 Apr 13 for review and comment within 30 days.  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________
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.  We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
(OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion 
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  
Therefore, 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-2013-00643 in Executive Session on 12 Nov 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	              , Panel Chair
	              , Member
	              , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Feb 13, w/atch.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 27 Mar 13, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Apr 13.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair




3