RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-04005
            INDEX CODE:  126.00, 131.09
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect that he was  retired  in  the  grade  of
master sergeant (E-7).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was demoted due to Article 15  action.   Similar  actions  were  done  by
other individuals and no punishments was given.  A  history  of  overlooking
these incidents has occurred prior to his Article 15.  He served  a  minimum
of 6 months in the grade and should be returned to that grade.

In support of his request, applicant provided his Verification  of  military
Experience and Training  documents,  a  personal  memorandum,  a  Leave  and
Earnings Statement, his Article 15,  and  an  Unfavorable  Information  File
memorandum.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant's master personnel records  cannot  be  located.   Data  extracted
from the reconstructed record reflects he contracted his initial  enlistment
in the Regular Air Force on 21 Oct 83.  He  was  progressively  promoted  to
the grade of master sergeant, having assumed that grade effective  and  with
a date of rank of 15 Mar 01.

On 3 Aug 01, the applicant was notified by his commander of  his  intent  to
recommend nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the  UCMJ  for  wrongly
engaging  in  an  unprofessional  relationship  with  a  female  airman  and
endeavoring to influence the actions of that airman.  He was advised of  his
rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification on 8  Aug
01.  After consulting counsel, the applicant  waived  his  right  to  demand
trial by court-martial, accepted Article  15  proceedings,  and  provided  a
written presentation to his commander.  On 9 Aug 01, after consideration  of
all the facts, his commander determined that he committed  one  or  more  of
the offenses alleged and  imposed  punishment  on  the  applicant.   He  was
reduced to the grade of E-6 with a new date of  rank  of  9  Aug  01  and  a
reprimand.  The applicant did not appeal his  punishment  to  the  appellate
authority.

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.  Applicant  was  voluntarily  retired  from
the Air Force on 30 Nov 03.  He served 20 years, 1  month  and  10  days  on
active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial.  JAJM states  other  than  his  statement,  he
provides no supporting documentation to support his contention nor  does  he
challenge the merits of the Article 15  action.   The  commander  determined
that Article 15 action was warranted and had the legal authority  to  demand
an accounting from the applicant.  He waived his right to  demand  trial  by
court-martial and chose to accept Article 15 proceedings.  He  has  provided
no evidence of an error or injustice related to the  nonjudicial  punishment
action.  The JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRRP recommends denial.  DPPRRP states at the  time  he  applied  for
retirement, he held the grade of technical sergeant.  Although  the  highest
grade he held on active duty was master sergeant, he  had  been  demoted  to
technical  sergeant  and  applied  for  retirement  in  that   grade.    His
retirement application was forwarded to  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force
Personnel Council (SAF/PC) to determine if  he  would  be  advanced  to  the
highest grade in which he served satisfactorily in accordance  with  10  USC
§8964.   On  17  Oct  03,  SAF/PC  determined  that   he   did   not   serve
satisfactorily in any higher grade than technical sergeant and would not  be
advanced under the provisions of 10 USC §8964.  The DPPRRP evaluation is  at
Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  on  12
Mar 04 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.   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 Council reviewed the  applicant's  case  and  determined
that he did not serve satisfactorily in the grade  of  master  sergeant  and
should not be advanced for pay  purposes  on  the  retired  list.   After  a
thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record,   we   agree   with   their
determination.  With respect to his nonjudicial punishment,  which  resulted
in his reduction in grade, evidence has not been presented which would  lead
us to believe that the punishment imposed on the applicant was  improper  or
unjust.  His contentions are  duly  noted;  however,  we  do  not  find  his
uncorroborated assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the  rationale
provided by the Air Force.   Therefore,  we  agree  with  the  opinions  and
recommendations of the Air  Force  offices  of  primary  responsibility  and
adopt their rationale as the basis for our  conclusion  that  the  applicant
has not been the victim of  an  error  or  injustice.   In  the  absence  of
persuasive evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  basis  upon  which  to
favorably consider this

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issue  involved.   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 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-
04005 in Executive Session on 13 Apr 04, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
      Ms. Kathleen Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Nov 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Reconstructed Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 24 Feb 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 2 Mar 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Mar 04.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair