RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01874
            INDEX CODE 129.00
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be retired as a master sergeant,  the  highest  grade  he  held  on
active duty.
_________________________________________________________________

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, which is
at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the period in question, the applicant  was  a  master  sergeant
assigned to the 37th  Training  Wing  at  Lackland  AFB,  TX,  as  the
superintendent of Social Actions (SA).

On 29 July 1994, he was reduced to the grade of technical sergeant  as
a result of imposition of nonjudicial punishment by  Article  15.   He
had been found guilty of stealing household and hardware items,  of  a
value of about $577.21, the property of Builders Square. The  AF  Form
3070 indicates the applicant did not request a personal appearance  or
submit written materials. However, in his  DD  Form  149  package,  he
provides what appear to  be  rebuttal  documents  to  the  Article  15
action; presumably they are part of  his  appeal  package,  which  was
denied on 23 August 1994.  The applicant also provided  a  copy  of  a
letter, dated 12 October 1994, from the squadron commander at his next
assignment to the judge advocate’s  office.  The  commander  indicates
that she was considering mitigation if it was within her authority and
she requests legal review and guidance.  Evidently, the  decision  was
not to set aside the Article 15.

On 1 July 1995, the applicant voluntarily  retired  in  the  grade  of
technical  sergeant  under  the  provisions  of  the  Temporary  Early
Retirement Authority (TERA) with 17 years, 9 months and 25 days
of active service.  This was not in conjunction with high year  tenure
(HYT), which was set upon his reaching 20 years of active service as a
technical sergeant, i.e., 1 October 1997.

On 14 December 1994, the Secretary of the Air  Force,  acting  through
the Personnel Council (SAF/PC), directed that  the  applicant  not  be
advanced to any higher grade under the provisions of  Title  10,  USC,
Section 8964.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, 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.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Retirements Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRR, reviewed  this  appeal  and  states
that the law which allows for advancement of enlisted members  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.  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. In accordance with  the  provisions  of  law,  he  was
correctly retired and is not entitled to be  advanced  to  any  higher
grade.  Therefore, denial is recommend.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and takes offense with  the  Air
Force’s opinion that he did not serve  satisfactorily  in  the  higher
grade of master sergeant. He indicates  he  served  honorably  in  the
grade of master sergeant from 11 April 1992 until his demotion  on  29
July 1994. He provides examples of his  accomplishments.  He  was  not
treated like others similarly situated.

A complete copy of applicant’s response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded he should be retired in the grade of  master  sergeant.  His
contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these  assertions,
in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override   the
rationale provided by the Air Force. The applicant  may  quibble  over
the semantics of theft versus integrity, but the fact remains that  he
knowingly did not pay for items valued at $577.21. He also  argues  he
was “punished much more severely than others that  have  violated  the
same ethical standards.” However,  besides  not  being  privy  to  the
details of the particular cases cited by the  applicant,  we  evaluate
each case on its own  merits  and  his  actions  are  the  ones  being
examined by this Board. Further, while he may have performed well  for
a little over two years in the grade of master  sergeant,  we  do  not
find the SAF/PC’s determination that his dishonorable  actions  on  14
May  1994  rendered  his  entire  performance   in   that   grade   as
unsatisfactory to be an  abuse  of  its  discretionary  authority.  We
likewise do not find the decision unduly harsh or disproportionate  to
the offense committed. We therefore agree with the recommendations and
rationale of the Air Force that the applicant has  failed  to  sustain
his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view
of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary,  we  find
no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 16 March 1999 under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:


                 Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member
                 Ms. Melinda J. Loftin, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jun 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRR, dated 20 Aug 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 Sep 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Panel Chair