RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02732
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His rank of staff sergeant (E-5) be restored and he be awarded  the  Vietnam
Campaign Medal.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Based on the nature of the incident, he was  told  by  the  hearing  officer
that his punishment would be no more than a fine.  He was promoted to  staff
sergeant (E-5) in July 1965.  When he separated from  active  duty,  it  was
brought to his attention that some special orders had reduced  him  in  rank
to A1C (E-4).  He was told it could have been a clerical error and it  would
take a few days to check into it.   Since  he  was  anxious  to  be  at  his
sisters' high school graduation, he told them to process him out as  an  A1C
and let him know once the grade issue was cleared up.  When he received  his
honorable discharge in late 1968, it reflected the rank of  sergeant  (E-4).
He didn't understand the reason until recently when  he  applied  for  a  DD
Form 215 correction and was told  his  reduction  in  grade  was  due  to  a
disorderly conduct charge and an Article 15.  He was never told that he  had
been reduced in rank and he never paid a fine.  He served his  country  with
pride and honor and earned his rank of staff sergeant.

In support of his appeal, applicant submits a personal statement; a copy  of
his DD Form 214 and special order AB-135 dated 31 July 1965 and copy of  his
correspondence filed with his Congressional member.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  in  the  grade  of  airman
basic (E-1) on 31 August 1962.  Records reflect overseas tours in Japan  and
Turkey.  Prior to the events under review, he was progressively promoted  to
the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) on 1 July 1965.

On 27 May 1966, nonjudicial punishment was offered to  the  applicant  under
Article  15,  UCMJ  for  being  disorderly  in   station.    The   applicant
acknowledged receipt on the same date, waived his right to demand  trial  by
court-martial, and accepted the nonjudicial proceedings.  On  27  May  1966,
the commander imposed  punishment  on  the  applicant.   The  applicant  was
reduced to the grade of Airman First Class and ordered  to  forfeit  $108.00
of his pay per month for a period of one month.  The applicant  elected  not
to appeal the punishment.

On 6 June 1966, he was honorably released from active duty, having served  3
years and 9 months and 6 days on active duty of which  2  years,  11 months,
and 9 days was foreign service.  After  having  been  released  from  active
duty, he was transferred to the Air Force  Reserve  for  completion  of  his
military service obligation, which occurred on 30 August 1968.

On 13 May 2003, during a records review, Headquarters  Air  Force  Personnel
Center determined the applicant's eligibility for  and  entitlement  to  the
Vietnam Service Medal,  Air  Force  Good  Conduct  Medal  and  the  National
Defense Service Medal.

On 23 July 2003, the Board considered and  denied  the  applicant’s  request
that his rank was SSgt (E-5) rather than A1C (E-4) and  credit  for  an  NCO
training course (See Exhibit F).

On 4 October 2004, Headquarters  Air  Force  Personnel  Center  advised  the
applicant that his service in Vietnam for the period 24  August  1964  to  5
November 1964, did not meet the 6-month qualification time  period  for  the
Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal (see Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends the application  be  denied.   JAJM  states  that  the
applicant alleges he never signed the Article 15 paperwork or  was  notified
about the punishment for his disorderly conduct, but  provides  no  evidence
other than his statement to support his contention.  The signatures  on  his
DD Form 214 and other documents in his records appear to be  identical  with
the one on the Article 15 notification and punishment  imposition  indicated
he was made aware of his rights and made a conscious  choice  regarding  the
Article 15 procedures.  The AFLSA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________



APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 8 October 2004, a copy of the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  sent  to  the
applicant for review and comment.  As of this  date,  this  office  has  not
received a response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES 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.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice.  In earlier findings, the Board  determined
that there was insufficient evidence to warrant restoration of his  rank  to
staff sergeant.  After thoroughly reviewing his most recent  submission,  we
do not find it sufficiently compelling to warrant a revision of the  Board’s
earlier  determination.   Contrary  to  the  applicant’s   assertions,   his
military  personnel  records  clearly  show  that  he  was  advised  of  his
reduction in grade to airman first class and forfeiture of his pay  for  one
month.   He  was  offered  every  right  to  which  he  was   entitled,   he
acknowledged receipt and elected not to appeal the  Article  15  punishment.
Other than his own  assertions,  the  applicant  has  provided  no  evidence
showing his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders  abused
their discretionary authority.  In regard to the  applicant’s  request  that
he be awarded the Vietnam Campaign Medal, we defer to the recommendation  of
the Air Force office of primary responsibility who has adequately  addressed
this issue and we are in agreement with their recommendation.   In  view  of
the foregoing, we conclude that no basis  exists  upon  which  to  recommend
favorable action.

_________________________________________________________________

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 in  Executive  Session  on  16
November 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
                       Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
                       Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2004-02732:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Aug 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 28 Sep 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPRA, dated 4 Oct 04.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 04.
    Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 23 Jul 03.




                                   MARILYN M. THOMAS
                                   Vice Chair