AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

-- 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01611 
COUNSEL :  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

FEB  215 19912) 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
He be reinst’ated to the highest rank that he held. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
He was informed/told by his commander verbally. that he would ‘get 
c .   w--- 1 
his  stripe back  before  retirement.  She  (Major M--- 
stated  it  will  be  f o r   two  months.  He  also  states  that  upon 
retirement he was unaware that a grade determination should have 
been done.  He recently discovered he had this right and he is 
requesting this issue be done due to the actions that were taken 
against him.  He  states that he  feels very  unjust,  as well  as 
being misled by his commander, first sergeant, and supervisor. 
In support of the appeal applicant submits a personal statement 
andla copy of his discharge package. 
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 31 May 1977. 
Applicant was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant on 1 August 
1985. 
On 17 May  1991, applicant received an Article 15 for operating a 
vehicle while drunk, on or about  21 April  1991,  at  Brooks Air 
Force Base.  He received punishment of forfeiture of $250.00 pay 
per month for 2 months and 14 days extra duty. 
On  19 August  1993, applicant  received  an Article  15  for being 
AWOL  on  or  about  29  July  1993  and  did  so  remain  until  about 
2 August 1993.  He was reduced to the grade of senior airman. 

98-01611 

On 7 January 1994, applicant was notified that his commander was 
recommending  him  for  discharge  in  accordance with  AFR  39-10,' 
under  the provision  of paragraph  5-47b,  Conduct  Prejudicial to 
Good Order and Discipline.  Appiicant acknowledged receipt of the 
notification, reflecting he consulted counsel. 
On  12  January  1994,  the  commander  initiated  discharge  action 
based upon a 17 May 1991 Article 15 for driving while intoxicated 
and a 19 August 1993 Article 15 for AWOL. 
The commander further 
recommended that applicant' s  discharge be characterized as Under 
Other Than Honorable Conditions.  On 11 February 1994, applicant 
'received additional notification that a  third basis - dereliction 
of duty -  would be added to the two already listed reasons for 
the  discharge  recommendation.  After  consulting  legal counsel, 
applicant elected to exercise his right to a board hearing. 
On 17 February 1994,  an administrative discharge board was held 
at Brooks AFB. 
The board found that:  (1) Applicant did absent 
himself without leave from his place of duty from 29 July 1993 to 
2 August 1993;  and  (2) Applicant did operate a motor vehicle on 
Brooks AFB  while drunk on or about 21 April  1991. 
(3) On the 
other hand, the board  found that applicant was not derelict in 
the performance of his duties as alleged. 
On 5 April 1994, the applicant requested consideration of lengthy 
service for' having completed over 16 years of creditable service 
towards retirement eligibility. 
On 1 June 1994,  it was recommended that applicant not be granted 
lengthy service consideration and  that  he be  discharged with  a 
general discharge pursuant to AFR  39-10. 
On  20  June  1994,  the  vice  commander  recommended  applicant  be 
separated with a general discharge. 
On  12  September  1994,  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  denied 
lengthy  service  probation,  however,  approved  a  waiver  of  the 
restriction on early  retirement  for the  applicant and  approved 
his application for retirement effective on 1 October 1994. 
The  Secretary  further  found  that  the  applicant  did  not  serve 
satisfactorily in the higher grade of staff sergeant, within the 
meaning of Title 10, United States Code 8964. 
EPR profile since 1990 reflects the following: 
OVERALL EVALUATION 

PERIOD ENDING 

/ 

2  Apr 90 
25 Nov 90 
25 Nov 91 
31 J u l   92 
31 Jul 93 
6 Jan 94 

2 

98-01611 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The Retirements Branch, AFPC/DPPRR, reviewed the application and 
quotes the following: 

a.  Section 8964,  Title  10, United  States Code  allows  the 
advancement  of  enlisted members  to  the  highest  grade  in  which 
they served on active duty  satisfactorily as determined by  the 
Secretary of the Air Force.  The Secretary of the Air Force has 
delegated  this  authority  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force 
Personnel  Council  (SAF/PC).  On  12  September  1994,  the  SAF/PC 
made  the  determination  that  the  applicant  did  not  serve 
satisfactorily on active duty in any grade higher than that in 
which he was retired-senior airman  (SRA). 

b. 

Section  8961,  Title  10,  United  States  Code  states, 
"Unless  entitled  to  a  higher  retired  grade  under  some  other 
provision  of  law, a  Regular  or  Reserve  of  the Air  Force ... who 
retires other than for physical disability retires in the regular 
or reserve grade that he holds on the date of his retirement." 
They  also  state  that  the  law  which  allows  for  advancement  of 
enlisted meinbers of the Air Force when their active service plus 
service on the retired list totals 30 years is very specific in 
its application and  intent.  On  12  September  1994,  the  SAF/PC 
made  the  determination  that  the  applicant  did  not  serve 
satisfactorily on active duty in any grade higher than that  in 
which he was retired-SRA.  They further state that there are no 
other  provisions  of  law  that  would  allow  for  advancement  of 
enlisted  members.  All  criteria  of  the  pertinent  law  (Section 
8964) have been  met  in this regard and no  error  or  injustices 
occurred  in  the  retirement,  grade determination  or  advancement 
action.  However, in accordance with the provisions of law, the 
applicant was correctly retired  in the grade of SRA,  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 has  not  served satisfactorily in any higher 
grade while on active duty.  Therefore, they recommend denial of 
applicant's  request . 
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The applicant reviewed the Air  Force evaluation and states that 
he is not in agreement with the decision made at this time on his 
request for highest grade held.  He states that it is noted in 
the  evaluation  stating  the  denial  was  due  to  unsatisfactorily 
service.  He asks, how can a member perform satisfactorily when 

3 

there was unsatisfactorily support given by his supervisors.  He 
further requests that his request be reconsidered. 
Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E. 

98-01611 

THAT : 

1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by 
existing law or regulations. 
2.  The application was not timely filed; however,it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. . 
Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
3 .  
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  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 and adopt their rationale as the 
basis  for  the  conclusion  that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the 
victim  of  an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the  absence  of 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
4 .  
been  shown  that  a personal  appearance with  or without  counsel 
will  materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request f o r   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 12 January 1999, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603 : 

Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman 111, Member 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 
Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner  (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

4 

98-01611 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 May 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. Applicantis Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRR, dated 8 Jul 98. 
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Jul 98. 
Exhibit E. Applicant's  Response, dated 13 Aug 98. 

d + b w  

E.  SCHLUNZ 

VAUG 
Panel Chair 

5