AIR FORCE BOARD FOR  CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD  OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01274 
COUNSEL: None 
HEARING DESIRED: No 

"'' 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
His rank of chief master sergeant (CMSgt) be reinstated at his 30 
year point  (28 June 1998). 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
If  he  knew a  grade determination was  made  at  the  time of  his 
retirement he would have appealed then, but he was not: aware of 
t h i s .   There is no indication that a grade determination was made 
in his retirement orders, in fact, they mention that the highest 
grade  held was CMSgt, again indicating to him  that he would be 
reinstated  at  30  years. 
He  did  not  get  briefed  of  this 
disapproval at the time of his retirement.  He is asking that his 
outstanding  military  service, before  he  made  one  mistake,  be 
reviewed.  The  one mistake  he  made  did  not  put  any Air  Force 
member or the mission in danger.  He was in a care-taker status, 
because his former position was  deleted, awaiting for departure 
f o r   a  volunteer  assignment  to  Korea. 
He  had  an  outstanding 
career serving his country, the Air Force, he reached the highest 
enlisted grade, served 12 months in combat, had several overseas 
assignments,  held  high  level  management  positions  of 
responsibility, and was highly decorated. 
In support of his request, he submits a copy of DD Form 214, and 
a COPY of Special Orders No. AC-0221447, dated 23 July 1994. 
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Applicant  enlisted  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on  28  July  1968 
attaining the grade of CMSgt on 7. November 1987. 

* 

98 - 01274 

Applicant  was  found  guilty  by  a  special  court-martial  for. 
absenting himself, on divers occasions between on or about 1 July 
1993 and on or about 15 November 1993, from his place of duty at 
which he  was  required to be, and  remained  absent  for a period 
greater than three days; and on divers occasions from on or about 
1 July 1993 until on or about 15 November 1993, he was derelict 
in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to 
perform  training  or  work  while  temporarily  assigned  to  the 
Information  Management  Flight  of  the  12th  Mission  Support 
Squadron for purpose of training, as it was his duty to do.  On 
17 May  1994,  he  was  sentenced to a reduction to  the  grade  of 
senior master sergeant, forfeiture of  $500.00 pay per month for 
two months, and two months  hard  labor without  confinement.  On 
29 June 1994, the sentence was approved. 
As  part  of  the  retirement  processing,  a  highest  grade 
determination  was  done  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force 
Personnel Council  (SAFPC) on 1 August 1994 and it was determined 
that the applicant had not served satisfactorily in the grade of 
CMSgt  and  would  not  be  advanced  to  that  grade  on  the  Retired 
List. 
On 31 August  1994, the applicant wa8 relieved from active duty, 
and on 1 September 1994, was retired in the grade of SMSgt.  He 
served 26 years, 2 months, and 3 days of total military service. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The Chief,  Retirements Operations Section, AFPC/DPPRR, reviewed 
the  apgllcation  and  states that  the law, 10 U.S.C. 8964, which 
allows far  advancement of enlisted members of the Air Force when 
t h e i r   active service plus service QII  the  retired list totals 30 
years  Is  very  specific  in  its  application  and  intent.  On  1 
August 1994, the  SAFPC made the debemination that the applicant 
did not  serve satisfactorily on active duty in any grade higher 
than  that  in  which  he  retired  -  SMSgt.  There  are  no  other 
provisions of  law that would  allow  €or advancement of  enlisted 
members.  All  criteria of  the pertinent  Paw  (Section 8964) has 
been met  in this regard and no errors or injustices have occurred 
in the retirement, grade determination or advancement action.  In 
accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Paw,  the  applicant  was 
correctly retired in the grade of SMSgt, which was the grade he 
held  on  the  date  of  his  retirement.  He  is  not  entitled  to 
advancement to any higher grade as  the  Secretary has determined 
that he hag  not served satisfactorily in any higher grade while 
on active duty.  They recommend denial of applicant's request. 
A  complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C .  

2 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF  AIR FORCE  EVALUATION: 
On 22 June 1998, a copy of the.Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of 
this date, no response has been received by this office. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by 
existing law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 

tot 

Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
3 .  
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
reviewing  the  evidence  of  record, we  note  that  Section  8964, 
Title 10, United States Code allows the advancement of  enlisted 
the highest grade in which they served on active duty 
members 
satisfaetorIPy as determined by  the Secretary of the Air Force. 
The Secretary of  t h e   Air  Force has delegated this authority to 
the  Secretary of  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Council  (SAFPC) .  On 
1 August  1994,  the  SAFPC  made  the  deterrnhation  that  the 
applicant  gEP6  not  serve  satisfactorily or& active  duty  in  any 
grade  higher  than  that  in which  he  was  retired, senior master 
sergeant.  We  found  no  cogent  reason  to  disagree  with  this 
determination.  Nor do we believe that the refusal to permit his 
advancement to the highest grade held was ,unduly harsh given the 
instances. of  misconduct involved.  Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

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. 

98 - 01274 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 12 January 1999, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603 : 

Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair 
ME.  Richard A .   Peterson, Member 
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman, 111, Member 
Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 May 1998, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRR, dated 8 June 1998, w/atchs. 
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 June 1998. 

Panel Chair 

4