AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-00124 
COUNSEL:  THE AMERICAN LEGION 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

24 JUl 1998 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His records be  corrected to reflect that he was promoted to the 
grade  of  chief  master  sergeant  (CMSgt) during  the  9439  cycle, 
with a promotion  sequence number of  0142, effective  and with a 
date of rank of  1 Apr 95; and that he be given all back pay and 
allowances. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

His  superiors abused  and  misused  the  administrative process  by 
taking  adverse  administrative  actions  against  him  based  on  a 
driving under the influence of  (DUI) incident off-base.  He was 
exonerated in the off-base incident.  Therefore, the cancellation 
of his promotion to the grade of CMSgt was unjust. 
In  support  of  his  appeal, the  applicant  provided  a  twenty-two 
page  statement,  supportive  statements,  and  numerous  other 
documents associated with the matter under review. 
Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Information  extracted  from  the  personnel  data  system  (PDS) 
indicates that  the applicant retired from active duty effective 
1 Nov 97,  in  the  grade  of  senior  master  sergeant. 
He  was 
credited  with  24  years,  5  months,  and  13  days  of  active  duty 
service. 
Available documentation indicates that the applicant was selected 
for promotion to the grade of  CMSgt  for the  9439 cycle, with a 
promotion  sequence  number  of  0142  and  an  effective  date  of 
promotion of 1 Apr 95. 

On  4  Feb  95,  the applicant went  to an off-base promotion party 
for  a  co-worker.  At  the  party,  he  consumed  some  amount  of 
alcohol  and  pizza.  He  became  ill  and 
early. 
While driving  home, he  was  stopped by  a 
police 
officer who  subsequently arrested  him  for DUI.  The  officer's 
report  stated that  the applicant was  driving -39 miles per hour 
(mph) in a 30 mph zone, turned with a wide radius, and drifted. 
The  report  noted  the  following physical  observations  that  were 
indicative  of  intoxication:  The  applicant  did  not  stop  his 
vehicle  properly,  he  had  a  moderate  smell  of  alcohol  on  his 
breath, his speech was  "fair" and his eyes were bloodshot.  The 
report  further  noted  that  the  applicant  failed  three  field 
sobriety tests--the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the one  leg 
stand, and the walk and turn test.  The degree of failure in each 
of the three tests indicated that applicant probably had a blood 
alcohol  level  of  0.10%  or  more.  On  the  walk  and  turn,  the 
applicant  lost  balance  during  the  instructions,  stopped  while 
walking, didn't touch heel to toe, stepped off the line, used his 
arms for balance, and made  an improper turn.  On the nystagmus 
test, a  test  where  the  officer watches  how  the  subject's eyes 
follow the movement of an object, the applicant lacked smooth eye 
pursuit  in  both  eyes  and  had  a  distinct  nystagmus  at  maximum 
deviation.  On the one leg stand, the applicant used his arms for 
balance  and put  his  foot down.  The report also  indicated that 
the applicant was provided  a blood  alcohol content  (BAC) breath 
test which read 0.136%.  The maximum legal blood alcohol content 
level for driving in Kansas is below 0.08%. 
On 9  Feb 95,  the applicant's commander recommended to 22  ARW/CC 
On 
that  the  applicant's  promotion  to  CMSgt  be  withheld. 
10 Feb 95, the applicant received a letter of reprimand from his 
Air  Force , 
holdina  the 
promotion  to CMSgt, because he  had  been  stopped by  the 
Police  Department  for  exceeding  the  posted  speed  limit  and 
erratic driving, the officer noticed a moderate odor of alcohol 
on  the  applicant's breath,  and  because  the  concentration  of 
alcohol was subsequently measured at  .136, greater than the legal 
limit of  . 0 8 .   The letter stated that the action would remain in 
effect until the reason which necessitated the withhold action no 
longer existed and the applicant was recommended for promotion. 
In  response  to  the  withhold  action, the  applicant  submitted  a 
letter, dated  24  Mar  95.  In that  letter the  applicant  stated 
that he concurred with the actions. 

nder.  On  17 Mar  95,  the  Commander, 
F/CC)  notified  the  applicant  that  h 

On  9  May  95, 
F/CC  notified  the  applicant  that  he  had 
considered  his  submissions  and  was  withholding  the  promotion, 
deferring  any  further  decision  until  after  conclusion  of  the 
civilian criminal court case. 
On  1 Sep  95,  the applicant was diagnosed with  a hiatal hernia. 
was tried in the Municipal Court of the City of 
He was  found not  guilty of  DUI with  a blood 

2 

AFBCMR 97- 00124 

i 

? 

alcohol count over .08,  but found guilty of speeding and DUI with 
a blood alcohol count between . 0 5   and  . 0 8 .  
On  15  Dec  9 5 ,   the  applicant  requested  that  his  commander 
recommend his promotion to CMSgt. In his letter, he stated that, 
based  on  the  minimal  amount  of  alcohol  he  had  the  night  of 
4 Feb 9 5 ,   combined  with  his  physical  illness  (extreme stomach 
pains, acid reflux, gas and heartburn from a hiatal hernia that 
was later discovered, he was somewhat impaired from driving that 
night but was not at or over the legal BAC of  . 0 8 .   The applicant 
received  a  letter  of  support  from  his  supervisor  and  his 
commander recommended that he be promoted with a date of rank of 
1 Apr 9 6 .  
On  6  Jan  9 6 ,  
AF/CC  responded to  the applicant's request by 
removing him  f 
the promotion list.  The removal was because 
applicant  had  operated  a  motor  vehicle  while  intoxicated  and 
incapable of safely driving a vehicle.  The commander stated that 
the applicant was stopped for driving erratically and speeding, 
failed a field sobriety test, and was convicted of speeding and 
DUI.  Finally,  the  commander  stated  that  applicant's  conduct 
convinced him that the applicant did not deserve a promotion. 

On  17  May  9 6 ,   the  applica 
ion  to  the 
Eighteenth Judicial District, 
The judge 
dismissed  the  charges  sta 
Entry  the 
defendant's motion  for city's failure to comply with  discovery 
was substantiated. 
On 2 9   May 9 6 ,   the applicant requested that #AF/CC 
to the promotion list. 

reinstate him 

AF/CC successor denied applicant's request 

On 4 Oct  9 6 ,   the 
without stating the reasons for the denial. 
On 2 1  Oct 9 
licant asked f o r   the reasons for the denial.  On 
AF/CC  stated  that  he  denied  the  applicant's 
2  Nov  9 6 ,  
request  fo 
nstatement  because  he  was  convinced  that,  on 
the  applicant  operated  a  motor  vehicle  while 
4 Feb 9 5 ,  
intoxicated  or  impaired  by  alcohol  and  incapable  of  safely 
as pgrsuaded that th& 
driving a vehicle. -  He indicated 
applicant  was  stopped  by  the 
Police  for  driving 
erratically and at an excessive s 
that he failed a field 
sobriety test.  The denial of  reinstatement, in short, was based 
on the applicant's underlying misconduct, not on the conviction 
which was later dismissed on procedural grounds. 

3 

AFBCMR  97-00124 

b 

? 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Office  of  the  Staff  Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA,  reviewed this 
application  and  recommended  denial.  JA  noted  that  throughout 
applicant's submissions, he complained that he was not  accorded 
due process in the actions resulting in the loss of his promotion 
to  CMSgt  and  that  the  actions were  in violation of  the  double 
jeopardy clause of  the  Constitution.  According  to  JA,  it  was 
clear from the applicant's submissions that he did not even begin 
to  understand  the  legal  concepts  of  due  process  and  double 
j eopardy . 
First, the  applicant  did  not  grasp  the  concept  that  different 
types of  disciplinary actions are  accorded  different  levels of 
due  process. 
In  an  administrative  forum,  the  United  States 
Constitution requires that the individual be given notice of the 
proposed action, an opportunity to respond, and a decision by an 
impartial  individual  (that individual  can  even  be  the  person 
proposing  the  action  absent  a  showing  of  malice  or  personal 
bias).  Additionally, the  individual must  also be  afforded any 
statutory or regulatory procedural rights. 

It is JA's opinion that the applicant was accorded due process. 
By  his  own  admission, he  was  notified  of  the  action, given an 
opportunity to respond to that action, and the decision was made 
by  a commander that was  superior to the commander who initiated 
the action.  The processing of this case followed the procedures 
in AFI  36-2502, the  only due process  required by  Constitution, 
statute, or regulation. 

The Double Jeopardy clause of  the Fifth Amendment  to the United 
States Constitution  states  "...nor shall  any  person  be  subject 
for  the  same  offense  to  be  twice  put  in  jeopardy  of  life  or 
limb.. . . I' 
This  clause  of  the  Constitution  involves  criminal 
prosecution. 
It  stands  for  the  proposition  that  a  state  or 
federal government cannot twice prosecute  an individual for the 
same offense.  The clause does not prevent both the federal and 
state  government  from  criminally prosecuting  an  individual--an 

ice  officers  charged  with  beating 
ed in separate criminal trials by b 

le 
who 
of 
and the United States.  Furthermore, double 
j eopardy 
revent  the  exercise  of  both  criminal  and 
administrative sanctions in the same case by the same government 
(an example would be cases where an individual is court-martialed 
and,  after  the  court-martial  is  completed,  administratively 
separated  based  on  the  same  conduct).  Thus,  the  exercise  of 
administrative  actions  by  the  Air  Force  in  a  case  criminally 
prosecuted in Kansas is not  in conflict with  the Constitutional 
provision against double jeopardy. 

JA  indicated  that  the  applicant  claimed  there  was  insufficient 
evidence to support the commander's action.  In JA's view, this 
issue  forms  the  heart  of  applicant's request.  The  applicant 

4 

AFBCMR 97-00124 

mistakenly believed that the Air Force was in some way required 
to  ba 
isions  on  the  decisions  of  a  third  party--the 
State 
The applicant's mistaken belief was compounded 
y  to  understand  other  aspects  of  the  various 
by  hi 
proceedings he has been through. 

the applicant believed that he has been exonerated by the 
courts when, in fact, he never adjudicated the facts of 
e  to his benefit  in a 
court.  True, the charges 
against the applicant were dismissed, but they were dismissed not 
for lack  of  evidence  as he  claims, but  for a procedural rules 
violation by the prosecutor.  The only adjudication on the merits 
in the applicant's case resulted in a conviction, and while that 
conviction was  set  aside, the  evidence  supporting it  is  still 
open  to  consideration.  All  of  the  matters  included  in  the 
arresting  officer's report  were  available  to  the  commander  to 
determine administratively whether the applicant was and is fit 
for promotion. 
Second,  the  applicant  believed  that  the  same  evidentiary 
standards  should  be  applied  in  administrative  and  criminal 
proceedings.  He  did  not  understand  that  in  an  administrative 
hearing  all  relevant  and  material  evidence  may  be  considered 
while  in  a  criminal  proceedings  strict  and  complex  rules 
governing  the  admission of  evidence are  applied.  Even  if  the 
judge at  the applicant's initial trial did not admit the breath 
test into evidence, the commander may still independently decide 
if  the breath test  is material, relevant and  reliable and what 
weight,  if  any,  the  test  should  be  given. 
In  making  that 
decision, the commander considers such things as conflicting and 
contradictory evidence. 

In  this  case,  the  commander  was  obligated  to  weigh  only  the 
evidence  presented  by  the  police  report  and  the  evidence 
presented  in  response by  the member.  Initially, the applicant 
raised no defense.  In fact, he  admitted to wrongdoing, though 
not  specifically  to  DUI,  and  begged  for  mercy  based  on  the 
financial  impact  of  the  withhold  action. 
Next,  when  the 
applicant was  convicted of  a DUI offense, he  admitted to being 
''somewhat impaired'' and asked the commander to consider how much 
he had already lost as a result of his actions.  Once again, the 
applicant did not offer a defense.  He did state that the judge 
did  not  use  the  BAC  test  as evidence  and  called  the arresting 
officer a liar, but the applicant did not deny guilt, he admitted 
it.  Considering the overwhelming evidence of guilt in the police 
report; erratic  driving, visible  signs of  intoxication, failed 
sobriety tests, the contested BAC results; a vague admission of 
guilt in the applicant's initial response letter; and finally, an 
unequivocal  admission  of  guilt  in  the  latest  letter  from  the 
member, how could a comm 
r possibly reach a conclusion other 
than the one  reached by 
AF/CC?  In JA's opinion, promotion 
removal was necessary, appropriate, and supported by  the facts, 
and the applicant has offered no viable defense to the evidence. 

5 

AFBCMR  97-00124 

In  his  letter,  JA  indicated  that  the  applicant  showed  his 
ignorance of  what  happened  in  his  case  by  stating  incorrectly 
I'  [tl he  charges were dismissed because the local authorities had 
no evidence to support my arrest."  In this letter, the applicant 
first denied guilt  and began  raising other defenses before his 
commander  for the  first  time.  He  attacked  the  field  sobriety 
test claiming that the terrain had a 15 degree slope, that there 
were high winds, and below freezing temperatures which affected 
his  performance  of  the  tests.  The  applicant  further claimed, 
without supporting documentation, that the arresting officer now 
admits that the weather and terrain conditions could have caused 
him to fail the field sobriety test. 

When  the  applicant's  request  to  be  reinstated  was  summarily 
denied, he  again raised  the  issue with  the  commander.  In his 
letter,  he  claimed,  in  clear  conflict  with  his  initial 
correspondence, that he has always maintained his innocence.  The 
AF  commander wrote  in response that he  was  convinced that 
the  applicant  operated  a  motor  vehicle  while  intoxicated  or 
impaired by alcohol and incapable of safely driving a vehicle and 
failed  a  field  sobriety  test.  The  commander  stated  that  the 
removal  was  based  on  the  underlying  misconduct,  not  on  the 
conviction.  In JAIs opinion, the  commander correctly  assessed 
the situation. 

JA stated that the applicant also argued the removal and withhold 
actions  were  unjust  based  on 
mistakenly 
forth that 
believed to be similar cases 
other  individuals  who  were 
FB  for  DUI 
JA  believes  the 
received  different  treatment  than  himself. 
argument is faulty for several reasons. 

First, commanders are required to review each case on its unique 
facts  and  circumstances,  including  the  background  of  the  Air 
Force  member  accused  of  the  offense.  Identical  punishment  for 
every  offense  would  prove  error--an  inflexible  predetermined 
punishment, while variation  in punishment proves review of each 
case on the merits. 

Second, on-base and off-base offenses are apples and oranges when 
it comes to comparison.  Because of regulatory restrictions, off- 
base  and  on-base  DUI  offenses  are  and  must  be  treated 
differently--the Air  Force cannot, by  regulation, court-martial 
or offer  nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 to a member if 
state authorities exercise their criminal jurisdiction.  In off- 
base DUI cases, like the applicant's, only administrative actions 
may  be  taken.  These  include letters of  reprimand, unfavorable 
information  files,  control  roster  actions,  administrative 
demotions, and promotion withhold and removal actions. Thus, the 
Article 15 data submitted by the applicant is irrelevant. 
Third, the applicant anecdotally cited a non-DUI case involving 
an  officer  who  was  court-martialed  while  pending  promotion. 
Officer  and  enlisted  cases  cannot  be  compared  because  they 

6 

AFBCMR 97-00124 

involve  application  of  different  statutes  which  result  in 
different regulatory and procedural schemes.  Comparing officer 
and enlisted promotion cases is worse than comparing apples and 
oranges,  it  is  more  like  comparing  apples  and  cats. 
Additionally, one  cannot  compare  a case  involving solicitation 
for  prostitution  and  a  DUI,  they  simply  are  not  comparable, 
According  to  JA,  the  applicant  did  not  give  them  facts  to 
compare, he gave them anecdotes. 

Fourth,  for  the  Board  to  make  any  reasonable  comparison,  the 
applicant would  have  to provide  data  on  senior noncommissioned 
officers awaiting promotion who were  arrested for DUI off-base, 
and  who  had  their  civilian  criminal  case  dismissed  on  a 
technicality without a favorable finding on the merits.  He has 
not provided that type of  information and, even  if  be  had, the 
commanders involved would  have  to be  accorded  wide  latitude in 
disciplinary actions because each case must be judged on its own 
merits.  In other words, if  some or even all  the other similar 
NCOs were  allowed to be promoted, that  in and  of  itself, would 
not  be  conclusive  evidence  of  injustice  to  the  applicant. 
Adverse action is a matter of command discretion, and commander's 
must  be  allowed  a  reasonable  range  of  action  within  the 
permissible parameters.  In JA's opinion, the applicant's case is 
clearly within those parameters. 
JA stated that promotion propriety actions are discretionary acts 
by a commander.  A promotion authority makes the decision whether 
an  individual  is  fit  to  assume  a  higher  grade  based  on  a 
preponderance of the evidence, a more  likely than not  standard. 
The test to apply to determine whether discretion has been abused 
is whether any evidence exists from which a reasonable commander 
could conclude that  it  is more  likely than not  that  the member 
did  the alleged conduct and  therefore the member  is not  fit  to 
assume  the higher grade.  The  question to be  answered  in this 
case  is:  ''1s there  any  evidence  to  support  a  finding  by  a 
preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the  applicant  drove 
erratically, at excessive speed, and while impaired by alcohol?" 
It  is  JA's  opinion  that  there  is  sufficient  evidence  in  the 
police  report  to  support  the  promotion  authority's  decision. 
Additionally, there is the applicant's chamaeleonesque adaptation 
of his defense in this case which indicates that his truthfulness 
has been of less than what a commander might expect from a CMSgt. 
According to JA, the procedures set forth in the applicable Air 
Force regulations were  followed in this case, that the evidence 
supported the actions taken, and that there was no legal error or 
injustice in this case. 
A  complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit B. 
The  Airman  Promotion  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed  this 
application  and  recommended  denial.  According  to  DPPPWB,  the 
Major Command  (MAJCOM) ,  Field Operating Agency  (FOA) ,  or Direct 

7 

AFBCMR  9 7 - 0 0 1 2 4  

,  the  appli 
ng  his promot 

Air  Force 

promotion  be  placed  in  a  withhold  status. 

Reporting Unit  (DRU) Commander promotes to the grades of senior 
and chief master  sergeant.  This authority may be  delegated to 
the  Vice  Commander, Staff  Director, Director  of  Personnel, or 
Numbered  Air  Force.  Based  on  the  applicant  being  initially 
charged with  driving under  the  influence of  alcohol, speeding, 
and  erratic  driving  by  the 
police,  his  immediate 
W  Commander  that  his 
commander  recommended  to  th 
On 
1s  promotion  authority  (Commander, 
'AF/CC))  notified  him  that  he  was 
to  chief master  sergeant.  When  the 
charges  against  the  applicant  were  dismissed  based  on  a 
procedural technicality, his immediate commander sent a request 
to the promotion authority on 2 1  Dec 95  asking that he be allowed 
to assume the grade of chief master sergeant with a date of rank 
of 1 Apr 96,  not 1 Apr 95,  which would have been his date of rank 
under  normal  circumstances.  His  request  was  denied  and  the 
applicant's tentative  promotion  was  canceled  by  the  promotion 
authority.  On 4 Jun 96,  t 
licant's new immediate commander 
forwarded a letter to the 
/CC indicating the applicant was 
F/CC  denying  him  his  tentative 
appealing  the  decision  by 
promotion to chief master se 
nt. This request was forwarded to 
the new m A F / C C  who denied 
einstatement of his 
promotion on 4 Oct 96.  The reaso 
AF/CC for canceling 
his  promotion  was  underlying 
d  not  the  initial 
conviction  which  was  later  dismissed  on  procedural  grounds. 
Because  the  applicant  was  not  meeting  the  stringent  standards 
required of  a  Senior Noncommissioned Officer, the  canceling of 
his  tentative promotion by 
AF/CC was  appropriate  and  within 
the  intent of AFI  36- 2502 
is the governing directive for 
enlisted promotions. 

A complete copy of the DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
Counsel  indicated  that  they  believe  that  the  applicant's 
extensive presentation  and  the  subsequent  reviews and  advisory 
opinions of record more than adequately reflected the contentions 
and  considerations  in  this  case.  They  believe  that  further 
issues or argumentation would only be redundant in nature.  They 
are  assured  that  the  Board  will  afford  the  applicant  all  due 
consideration and compassion after a full and sympathetic review. 
Counsel's complete response is at Exhibit E. 

In  his  detailed  response,  the  applicant  indicated  that  the 
AFPC/JA  advisory  opinion  was  inundated  with  opinions  and  not 
facts. 
In  addition,  it  did  not  cover  the  other  pertinent 
information he  addressed  in  his  appeal  because  it  would  have 
negated their position.  In the applicant's view, the Board must 

8 

AFBCMR 97- 00124 

look at this case from page one a11 the way through to the last 
page.  If not, then justice will not be done. 
Applicant's 
documentation are at Exhibit F. 

complete  response  and  additional 

supporting 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
3.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable injustice.  A majority of 
the Board noted that the applicant was tentatively selected for 
promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant.  However, after 
he was charged by civilian police with DUI, speeding, and erratic 
driving,  his  promotion  was  withheld  pending  conclusion  of  his 
court case.  After he was found guilty of speeding and DUI with a 
blood  alcohol  count  less  than  the  legal  limit,  his  name  was 
removed  from  the  promotion  list.  The  applicant  appealed  his 
conviction  and  the  charges  against  him  were  dismissed  on 
procedural grounds.  As a result, he requested that the promotion 
authority  reinstate  his  promotion. 
However,  the  promotion 
authority  denied  his  request,  indicating  that,  despite  the 
dismissal  on  procedural  grounds,  he  was  convinced  that  the 
applicant  had  committed  the  alleged  offenses.  Inasmuch as  no 
evidence  has  been  presented  which  totally  convinces  the  Board 
majority that the applicant did not commit the alleged offenses, 
it is not inclined to reinstate the applicant's  promotion to his 
original date of rank.  Notwithstanding his guilt or innocence, 
by his own admission, he showed poor judgment, and demonstrated a 
lack  of  appreciation  for  the  responsibilities and  obligations 
imposed  on  him  as  a  senior  noncommissioned  officer. 
Nevertheless,  in  view  of  the  applicant's  lengthy  outstanding 
performance history, the recommendation of his superiors that he 
be  allowed  to  assume  the  higher  grade,  and  to  remove  the 
possibility of an injustice, the Board majority recommends that 
the  applicant  records  be  corrected  to  reflect  that  he  was 
promoted to the grade of chief master sergeant effective and with 
date of rank of 1 Apr 96 -  the date recommended by his supervisor 
and  commander  in  response  to  his  15  December  1995  request  to 
assume the rank of chief master sergeant.  In agreement with the 
rationale expressed by  the commander, it is the opinion of  the 
majority  of  the  Board  that  such  action  affords  the  applicant 
proper and fitting relief. 

9 

AFBCMR 97-00124 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was promoted 
to the grade of chief master  sergeant  (E-9) effective and with 
date of rank of 1 Apr  96, and that he was relieved from active 
duty on 31 Oct  97 and retired for length of service, effective 
1 Nov 97, in the grade of chief master sergeant. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 10 Mar  98, under the provisions of AFI  36- 
2603: 

Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member 
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member 

By  a majority vote, the Board voted to correct the records, as 
recommended.  Ms.  Crerar voted  to deny  the appeal but  did  not 
wish  to  submit  a  minority  report.  The  following  documentary 
evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jan 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 19 Mar 97. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 25 Mar 97, w/atch. 
Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MIBR, dated 7 Apr 97. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, counsel, dated 17 Apr 97. 
Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 22 Apr 97, w/atchs. 

n 

10 

AFBCMR 97-00124 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMfi97-00124 

24  JUL 1998 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for 

Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States 
Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: 

of chief master sergeant. 

Department of the Air Force relating to 
rrected to show that he was promoted to the grade of 
with date of rank of 1 Apr 96, and that he was relieved 
length of service, effective 1 Nov 97, in the grade 

W 

Air Force Review Boards Agency