RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01160
INDEX CODE: 131.09
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His retirement grade be changed from technical sergeant (E-6) to
master sergeant (E-7).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He believes the action of the Secretary of the Air Force was unjust.
His records throughout his career reflect he not only served
satisfactorily but did so in an outstanding manner. He accepted the
Article 15 not as an admission of guilt but chose to accept it and
retire to relieve his family from the harassment that was taking
place.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded
statement, documentation concerning the action of the Secretary of the
Air Force, an Article 15, information pertaining to his military
service, and his separation documents.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 Jul 82 for a period
of four years in the grade of airman basic. He was progressively
promoted to the grade of master sergeant on 1 Sep 00.
On 9 Dec 03, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under
Article 15 for being derelict in the performance of his duties by
willfully failing to wear a helmet while operating a motorcycle on 16
Aug 03; with the intent to deceive, making false official statements
on 28 Aug 03 and 1 Oct 03; and, being drunk and disorderly on 16 Aug
03. He was reduced from the grade of master sergeant to technical
sergeant, ordered to perform 30 days of extra duty, and reprimanded.
The applicant appealed the punishment but it was denied by the
appellate authority. On 19 Dec 03, legal authority found the
nonjudicial proceedings under Article 15 were legally sufficient.
On 23 Jan 04, the Secretary of the Air Force found the applicant did
not serve satisfactorily in any higher grade and would not be advanced
under the provisions of Section 8964, Title 10, United States Code.
On 31 Mar 04, the applicant was relieved from active duty and retired,
effective 1 Apr 04, in the grade of technical sergeant. He was
credited with 21 years, 8 months, and 17 days of active service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRRP recommended denial indicating the applicant’s retired
grade is E-6 because, under 10 USC 8961(b), he held the grade of E-6
on the date of retirement. Although the highest grade he held on
active duty was E-7, the applicant had been demoted to E-6 and retired
in that grade. Under 10 USC 8964, the Secretary of the Air Force
determined the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in any higher
grade, so he would not be advanced to any higher grade than E-6 when
his active service plus service on the retired list totals 30 years.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRRP evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response
reiterating his belief the action by the Secretary of the Air Force
was unjust. The Article 15 was the first disciplinary action of that
nature during his career. He has had no other problems with his
behavior on or off duty. He took full responsibility for his actions.
His dedication to his unit, the wing, and the Air Force was
unsurpassed. He believes he was overly punished for one human mistake
and that his entire career was not taken into consideration.
Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit F.
Applicant also reviewed the AFPB Vote Sheets which were provided to
him for review and comments and furnished a response which is attached
at Exhibit H.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of injustice. The evidence of record indicates that,
subsequent to his receipt of nonjudicial punishment under Article 15,
a Secretarial determination was made reflecting the applicant had not
served satisfactorily in the higher grade of master sergeant and would
not be advanced under the provisions 10 USC 8964. He eventually
retired in the grade of technical sergeant. While we have found no
evidence which has shown to our satisfaction the Article 15 punishment
was improper or an abuse of discretionary authority, it is our opinion
corrective action is warranted based on the following considerations.
The applicant had an outstanding Air Force career and, with the
exception of the infractions which led to the imposition of the
Article 15, performed his duties in an outstanding manner in the grade
of master sergeant for almost 39 months and received three firewalled
Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs). It also appears the applicant’s
behavior resulting in disciplinary action against him was a mistake in
judgment, and not a pattern of misconduct. In view of these
considerations, we believe that a permanent reduction in grade from
master sergeant to technical sergeant was excessively harsh and,
therefore, unjust. The Article 15 was sufficient punishment for his
lapse in judgment. Accordingly, we believe proper and fitting relief
in this case would be to reinstate the applicant to the grade of
master sergeant prior to his date of retirement. In arriving at our
decision, we note the current Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM)
provides, among other things, that commanders should consider
suspending all or part of any punishment selected under Article 15,
particularly in the case of first offenders. Accordingly, we
recommend the applicant’s records be corrected to the extent set forth
below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:
a. He was promoted to the grade of master sergeant effective
and with a date of rank of 30 Mar 04.
b. On 31 Mar 04, he was relieved from active duty and retired,
effective 1 Apr 04, in the grade of master sergeant, rather than
technical sergeant.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-01160 in Executive Session on 22 Sep 04, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPB Vote Sheets.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 15 Jun 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jun 04.
Exhibit F. Letter, applicant, dated 29 Jun 04, w/atch.
Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Jul 04.
Exhibit H. Letter, applicant, dated 3 Aug 04, w/atchs.
ROBERT S. BOYD
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2004-01160
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to , be corrected to show that:
a. He was promoted to the grade of master sergeant
effective and with a date of rank of 30 Mar 04.
b. On 31 Mar 04, he was relieved from active duty and
retired, effective 1 Apr 04, in the grade of master sergeant, rather
than technical sergeant.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
-----------------------
[pic]
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04005
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-03425
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03425 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: By amendment, his effective date of advancement to the grade of master sergeant on the retired list be changed to his original date of advancement to the grade of master sergeant. Effective 6 Oct 00, the applicant was advanced to the grade of...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00059
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He served in the grade of master sergeant (MSgt) from 1 October 1974 to 3 December 1974; therefore, he should be retired in that grade. The DPPRRP evaluation is at Exhibit D. The SAFPC Legal Advisor concurs with DPPPWB that denial of the applicant’s request is appropriate since he voluntarily refused promotion to MSgt. In response to DPPRRP’s request for review, the SAFPC Legal Advisor states that...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01118
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to his nonjudicial punishment, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM reviewed this application and recommends denial. DPPPWB states that the applicant’s punishment consisted of a reduction from the grade of MSgt (E-7) to TSgt (E-6) with a new date of...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00487
Applicant requests that his reduction to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) imposed as punishment under Article 15 on 18 Aug 03 be set aside or suspended and he be returned to the grade of master sergeant (E-7). In support of his appeal, applicant attaches a summary of the charges and payments he made on his government credit card, character references, and copies of the leave log to show he was on leave. At the time the applicant retired, he held the grade of master sergeant.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2003-03941
In addition, they found the following; 1) no convening authority may apply the conditions on suspension to the confinement element of the adjudged sentence; 2) the period of suspension of the punitive discharge and reduction in grade, during which the applicant was required to participate satisfactorily in an acceptable sex offender FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 rehabilitation program, was limited to five years; 3) involuntary appellate leave was to be applied to the...
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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00307 INDEX CODE: 131.09 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His retirement pay grade be changed from E-6 to E-7. On 27 Oct 97, after considering the matters presented by the applicant, the commander found that the applicant had committed one or more of the offenses alleged and imposed...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03970
On 22 Dec 82, he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 for financial irresponsibility and was reduced in grade from staff sergeant to sergeant. In their view, the Tower Amendment was not applicable to the applicant because he was reduced in grade prior to completion of 20 years of active service. In order for the applicant to have been eligible for retirement pay recalculation under the Tower Amendment, he would have needed 20 years of active service at the time he held the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02624
Regular enlisted members may, when their active service plus service on the retired list total 30 years, be advanced (on the retired list) and receive retired pay in the highest grade held on active duty satisfactorily, as determined by the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) or designee under Title 10, USC, Section 8964. The order also advised that, effective 9 Jun 04, the applicant would be advanced on the USAF retired list to the grade of SSgt, the highest grade held on active duty, by...