Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03543
Original file (BC-2003-03543.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03543
            INDEX CODE:  120.04
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect that  he  was  retired  in  the  highest
grade held.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served honorably during his 20 years of  service.   He  admitted  to  the
offense charged in his Article 15 without coercion.  His  supervisor  during
the period wrote him  a  performance  evaluation  that  he  believes  is  an
overall "5" rating.

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
documentation associated  with  his  Article  15  punishment,  documentation
associated with his request for  Congressional  inquiry,  and  documentation
associated with Secretary of the Air Force grade advancement  determination.
 His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  27
Oct 80.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of  technical  sergeant,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank  of  1  Sep  94.
On 10 Feb 99, applicant was notified by  his  commander  of  his  intent  to
impose punishment under Article 15 of the  UCMJ.  The  specific  reason  for
this action was that he engaged in unprofessional conduct between 1  Feb  98
and 8 Jan 99 by having sexual intercourse  with  a  female  staff  sergeant,
while being her supervisor.  After consulting counsel, applicant elected  to
waive is right to demand trial by court-martial and made a written and  oral
presentation to his commander.  On 23 Feb 99, the commander  found  that  he
did commit one or more of the offenses alleged  and  imposed  punishment  on
the applicant.  His punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of  staff
sergeant with a date of rank of 23  Feb  99.   Applicant  did  not  wish  to
appeal the punishment.  On 31 Oct 00,  applicant  was  retired  for  maximum
service or time in grade.  He served 20 years and 4 days on active duty.

On 6 Jul 00, the Secretary of  the  Air  Force,  Personnel  Council  SAF/PC,
determined that the applicant served satisfactorily in the higher  grade  of
technical sergeant and directed that he be advanced in that  grade,  on  the
retired list, upon completion of the required service (27 October 2010).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRRP recommends denial.  DPPRRP states that he was correctly  retired
in the grade of staff sergeant, which was the grade he held on the  date  of
his retirement.  The law, which allows for advancement of  enlisted  members
is  very  specific  in  its  application  and  intent.   SAF/PC   made   the
determination that he should be advanced to the grade of technical  sergeant
effective 27 Oct 10.  There are no other  provisions  of  law,  which  would
allow for advancement.

The DPPRRP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on  5  Dec
03 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office  has
received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice that would warrant corrective  action.   The
Board notes that in accordance with the decision of  the  Secretary  of  the
Air Force Personnel Council, the  applicant's  grade  will  be  advanced  to
technical sergeant on the retired list for pay purposes on 27 October  2010.
 We agree with the Air Force  office  of  primary  responsibility  that  his
discharge documents properly reflect his grade held at  separation  and  the
applicant has not  provided  evidence  of  any  errors  or  injustices  that
occurred in his discharge processing.  Therefore,  based  on  the  available
evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably  consider  this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2003-
03543 in Executive Session on 8 Jan 04, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
      Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Oct 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 21 Nov 03, w/atchs
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Dec 03.




                                   MR. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01345

    Original file (BC-2002-01345.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01345 INDEX CODE: 131.09 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His retirement grade of senior airman (E-4) be changed to reflect technical sergeant (E-6) and that he receive consideration for reinstatement to the grade of master sergeant (E-7). A Monthly Retirement Pay Estimate was introduced into...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9900767

    Original file (9900767.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 1 Feb 89, the applicant retired under the provisions of AFR 35-7 (Voluntary-Retirement For Years of Service Established By Law) with an honorable characterization of service in the grade of staff sergeant. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Special Programs Section, AFPC/DPPRRP, reviewed this application and indicated that Section 8961, Title 10, USC, 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03407

    Original file (BC-2005-03407.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    There were many inconsistencies with the Weight and Body Fat Measurement Program (WBFMP) measurements taken. On 31 Oct 02, applicant voluntarily retired from the Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant for years of service. DPPRRP states on 18 Dec 01, his request for retirement was denied, although there is no indication in his record that his specific request for retirement in lieu of demotion was forwarded to the SAF as an attachment.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04005

    Original file (BC-2003-04005.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 17 Oct 03, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAF/PC) considered the applicant's case and determined that he did not serve satisfactorily in the grade of master sergeant and did not warrant advancement on the Retired list. We find no evidence of error in this case, and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation provided in support of his appeal, we do not believe he has been the victim of an injustice. The Board notes that the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01075

    Original file (BC-2003-01075.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    AFI 36-2606 states that the appeal authority for individuals like the applicant with more than 20 years of service would be his group commander. Based on HQ AFPC/DPPRRP’s advisory (Exhibit E), the group commander’s Military Personnel Flight (MPF) contacted the HQ AFPC retirements section to advise that the group commander was going to complete the AF Form 418. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advises the applicant was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2003-03227

    Original file (bc-2003-03227.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was retired in the grade of staff sergeant, effective 1 November 1988, and was credited with 20 years and 6 days of active service for retirement. The SAF/PC determined that the applicant did not satisfactorily serve in any grade higher than staff sergeant and he was correctly retired in the grade he held at the time of his retirement. On 27 September 1988, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Counsel (SAF/PC) found that the applicant did not satisfactorily serve in any higher grade...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02504

    Original file (BC-2003-02504.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    When the applicant was selected for promotion to SSgt after having been previously demoted, the personnel system was not updated prior to his retirement orders being published. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03225

    Original file (BC-2003-03225.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    We find no evidence of error in this case, and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation provided in support of his appeal, we do not believe he has been the victim of an injustice. The Board notes that in accordance with the decision of the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council, the applicant's grade will be advanced to staff sergeant on the retired list for pay purposes on 10 January 2008. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01771

    Original file (BC-2003-01771.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 9 Jul 93, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAF/PC) considered the applicant's case and determined that the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in the grade of master sergeant and did not warrant advancement on the Retired list. The adjudged sentence indicates the members considered his mitigating factors. Accordingly, we recommend that his records be corrected to reflect that when his combined active service time plus time on the Retired list equals 30 years, he...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2000-00074

    Original file (BC-2000-00074.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    He submitted a request for retirement in lieu of discharge and requested a hearing before an administrative discharge board. He was not discharged from the Air Force on 21 August 2000, but rather on that date he was continued on active duty. Exhibit H. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 29 Oct 03 ROSCOE HINTON, JR. Panel Chair MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) FROM: SAF/MR SUBJECT: AFBCMR Case on I have carefully reviewed all of the...