AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

MAR  -81999 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00276 
COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  Yes 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

1.  The Article 15, dated 11 Dec 87, be removed from his records 
and he be awarded all back pay and allowances. 
2.  He be given credit for the five years he was taken out of his 
career field and allowed to test for promotion. 

3.  He be promoted to master sergeant, senior master sergeant, or 
to an equal level with his peers. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The reasons applicant believes he has been the victim of an error 
and/or  an  injustice  are  contained  in  his  complete  submission, 
consisting  of  two  DD  Form  149s  and  attachments, which  is  at 
Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant  retired  in  the  grade  of  technical  sergeant  (Date of 
Rank: 1 Sep 97) on 1 Apr 98 due to high year tenure  (HYT). He had 
20 years and 14 days of active duty. 
The relevant facts pertaining to  the Article 15 issue, extracted 
from  the  applicant's military  records,  are  contained  in  the 
letter  prepared  by  the  appropriate  office  of  the  Air  Force. 
Accordingly,  there  is  no  need  to  recite  these  facts  in  this 
Record of Proceedings. 

The applicant's records reflect he  experienced multiple medical 
problems  during  his  career,  to  include  surgery,  physical 
profiles, and permanent restrictions. 

A Medical Evaluation Board  (MEB) reviewed his condition on 13 Jul 
88  and  recommended he  be  returned to  duty.  A  message  from  HQ 
AFMPC  to the applicant's group advised that reclassification or 
retraining action was not warranted unless physical restrictions 

prevented  a member  from working  anywhere in his AFSC, and that 
certification  from  the  commander  that  a  member  could  not  be 
effectively  utilized  should  be  the  basis  for  medical 
recommendation for cross training. 
A  6  Jan 89 Narrative Summary indicates that applicant's medical 
condition  warranted  his  avoiding  toxic  fumes,  dust,  smoke  or 
otherwise contaminated atmosphere. The recommendation was that he 
be  considered for cross training if  he  could not  return to his 
regular duties in aircraft maintenance, which was very doubtful. 

A  letter from the  squadron section commander, dated  11 Jan 89, 
indicated that  the  applicant  could not  be  used  in his  current 
AFSC  with  his  medical  problems  and  cross  training  was 
recommended. 

On  9 May  90, an MEB  recommended the applicant  be  continued on 
medical  observation  and  care  for  six  months  for  status  post 
anterior ligament reconstruction, left knee. 

On a Statement of Record Data, AF Form 1185, dated 16 May 90, the 
applicant requested consideration for retraining. 
The  applicant  continued  to  experience  medical  problems.  In  a 
letter dated  24 Jan  91, the  Chief, Physical Therapy, supported 
applicant's desire to be  retained as an active duty member and 
cross trained to a less strenuous career field. 

Another MEB convened on 13 Feb 91 and returned the applicant to 
duty. Another message from HQ AFMPC to applicant's group advised 
that reclassification/retraining action was not warranted unless 
physical restrictions prevented him from working anywhere in his 
AFSC.  A  Narrative  Summary  for  cross  training  was  written  on 
12 Jun  91; however,  the  page  containing  the  recommendation  is 
missing. 
On 12 Feb 92, applicant applied for a staff sergeant slot in the 
702x0 career field. 

The applicant's performance reports indicate that from 17 Mar 78 
to  18 Nov  87 he  held  a primary/duty Air  Force  Specialty  Code 
(AFSC)  of  43131C  and/or  43151  with  duties  in  the  aircraft 
maintenance/inspection field.  As  of  19 Nov  87 he  still held  a 
duty  AFSC  of  43151, but  he  was  titled  an  assistant  dormitory 
manager. On 19 Nov  88, he had a duty AFSC of 45254M and a title 
of  squadron mobility  NCO.  He was  the disaster preparedness NCO 
(45254A) as of  11 Aug  90. On  2 Apr  91, he  had  a duty AFSC  of 
74131 and a duty title of squadron training NCO. On 6 Oct  92 he 
was  the  fitness and  recreation specialist with  a  duty AFSC  of 
78150. From 9 Mar 93 until his retirement, he held a duty AFSC of 
3M051  and  held  the  consecutive  duty  titles  of  recreation and 
fitness  specialist,  services  specialist,  and  culinary  arts 

2 

98-00276 

specialist/supervisor.  The  overall  ratings  reflected  on  the 
available reports are: 9, 8, 7, 9, 9, 8, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 4 
(New System), 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, and 5. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION 

The  Associate  Chief,  Military  Justice  Division,  AFLSA/JAJM, 
evaluated  the  case  and  provides  the  details  pertaining  to  the 
Article 15. The author concludes that the Article  15 action was 
properly accomplished and the applicant was afforded all rights 
granted by statute and regulation. There is nothing in the record 
to  indicate the  commander was  unfair  or  [not] impartial.  The 
Article  15 was  within  legal  limits and  was  appropriate to  the 
offense. Denial is recommended. 

A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

The Chief, Skills Management Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, also reviewed 
the  appeal  and  comments  that  review  revealed  no  retraining 
application on file.  By regulation, the applicant cannot submit 
for retraining after reaching 16 years of service. In this case, 
the applicant went over 16 years on 17 Mar 94 and would not have 
been  eligible  for voluntary  retraining  after  this  time  frame. 
Denial is recommended. 

A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

The  Chief, Enlisted/BCMR  Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, examined  the 
application and  indicates that  the Article  15 during  this time 
frame would not have been an automatic ineligible for promotion 
condition. The applicant was nonrecommended for promotion by his 
commander  for  the  89A6  cycle.  However,  the  author  cannot 
determine  the  reason  for  the  commander's  action.  In  summary, 
during  the  period  the  applicant  was  an  Assistant  Dormitory 
Manager from 1 Nov 88-22 Aug 92, he was not disadvantaged because 
he  was  performing  duty  out  of  his  Control  Air  Force  Specialty 
Code  (CAFSC). The  author  explains  why,  and  recommends  that 
applicant's request  for promotion  to master  sergeant or  senior 
master sergeant be denied. 

A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant rebutted the evaluations, indicating that when he first 
requested to cross train he had  only  11 years in the military. 
The paperwork to get him cross trained evidently was never turned 
in. He  wasn't just  a Dorm  Manager  for the  1 Nov  8 8 - 2 2   Aug  92 
period; he was in various positions. He was only supposed to be 
out of his career field for 190 days at the most, not five years. 

3 

98-00276 

As for the Article 15, he can't be held responsible for following 
orders that turned out to be wrong. 
Applicant's response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G .  

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 
3 .   Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. After a 
thorough  review of  the  evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant's 
submission, we are not persuaded the contested Article 15 should 
be voided, or that the applicant should be  allowed to test  for 
promotion  or  be  promoted.  His  contentions  are  duly  noted; 
however, we do not  find these uncorroborated assertions, in and 
by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the available 
evidence of record. The Article 15 was properly accomplished and 
the  applicant  was  afforded  all  rights  granted  by  statute  and 
regulation. The nonjudicial punishment was within  legal limits, 
appropriate  to  the  offense,  and  does  not  appear  unjust  or 
disproportionate. Because of his medical problems the applicant 
performed  duties  out  of  his  Control AFSC.  However, he  has  not 
provided persuasive evidence to show that he was disadvantaged by 
this. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the 
contrary, we  find no compelling basis to recommend granting the 
relief sought. 

4.  The documentation provided with this case was  sufficient to 
give the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a 
personal  appearance, with  or  without  legal  counsel, would  not 
have  materially  added  to  that  understanding.  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  probable  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 this application in 
Executive Session on  15 December 1998, under  the provisions of 
AFI 3 6 - 2 6 0 3 :  

4 

98-00276 

Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair 
Mr. Frederick A. Beaman 111, Member 
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member 

The  following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149,  dated 2 2   Jan 98,  w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 6 Mar 9 8 .  
Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 20 Apr 9 8 .  
Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 9   Apr 9 8 .  
Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 May 98. 
Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, received 5 Oct 98,  w/atchs. 

THA MAUST 
Panel Chair 

5 

98-00276