RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03563
            INDEX CODE:  131.09

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His rank be changed from senior airman (SrA) to staff sergeant (SSgt),
with a date of rank (DOR) of 15 Jul 03.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was reduced from the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) to SrA  for
driving under the influence (DUI), which he believes was too harsh for
the offenses he committed.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement
and copies of his Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of SrA,
with a DOR of 15 Jul 03.  His Total Active  Federal  Military  Service
Date (TAFMSD) is 21 Dec 87.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB   recommended   denial   noting    the    applicant    was
administratively demoted from TSgt to SrA with  a  DOR  of  15 Jul 03.
They indicated it was their opinion the demotion action taken  against
the applicant was procedurally correct and there is no evidence  there
were any irregularities or the case was mishandled in any way.   As  a
matter of fact,  the  applicant  is  not  questioning  the  procedural
correctness of  the  demotion;  he  simply  feels  that  a  two-stripe
demotion, along with other punishments received both on and off  base,
was excessive.  In their view, the commander was within his  authority
to demote the applicant two grades.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/JA recommended denial  noting  the  applicant  was  convicted  of
driving under the influence of alcohol twice  in  North  Dakota.   The
first offense occurred in Oct 02 and carried a  punishment  consisting
of a 91-day  driving  suspension,  a  $375.00  fine,  and  a  five-day
suspended jail sentence.  His commander also served him with a  letter
of reprimand (LOR), established an unfavorable information file (UIF),
and his name was placed on  a  control  roster  for  this  conviction.
Additionally, the installation commander revoked the  applicant’s  on-
base driving privileges for one year.  In Apr 03, the  control  roster
was removed and the applicant was permitted to reenlist.

According to AFPC/JA, the applicant’s second DUI took place in May  03
in another off-base incident.  After pleading guilty to this  offense,
the applicant was sentenced to five days in the local jail, a  $700.00
fine, and a suspended driver’s license for one  year.   Subsequent  to
this conviction, the applicant’s commander issued him another LOR that
was filed in the existing UIF and  placed  him  back  on  the  control
roster.  The commander also administratively demoted the applicant  to
SrA  from  his  existing  TSgt  rank  and   initiated   administrative
proceedings.  While the discharge board that convened  to  review  the
applicant’s case recommended he be separated from the Air Force with a
general discharge, the wing commander elected to retain  him  with  an
offer of probation and  rehabilitation.   The  applicant  successfully
completed his probationary period in Jun 04.

In AFPC/JA’s view, no information the applicant provided suggested any
impropriety or unfairness  meriting  the  relief  he  seeks.   By  any
measure, it appears the applicant’s commander made a sound decision in
taking the administrative  demotion  action  because  of  the  serious
criminal offenses he committed.

A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the  advisory  opinion  and  furnished  a  response
indicating he has spoken to a number of other individuals who had been
charged with DUI off base and none of them  received  a  reduction  in
rank, since it would have  been  double  jeopardy.   Furthermore,  the
incidents that resulted in his two-stripe reduction  in  rank  had  no
impact on his duty performance.  He believes what happened to him  was
a result of a personal vendetta.

Applicant’s complete 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  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find  the  applicant’s  assertions  or  the
documentation  presented  in  support  of  his   appeal   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices
of primary responsibility (OPRs).   No  evidence  has  been  presented
which would lead us to believe the information used as a basis for his
demotion was erroneous, the demotion action was processed in a  manner
contrary to the governing  instruction,  or  there  was  an  abuse  of
discretionary authority in the applicant’s case.  Therefore, we  agree
with the recommendation of the OPRs and adopt their rationale  as  the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed  to  sustain  his
burden  of  establishing  he  has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  Accordingly, we find  no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in 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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 3 Mar 05, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
      Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2004-03563 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Nov 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 7 Dec 04.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 21 Jan 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jan 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 16 Feb 05.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair