RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                        DOCKET  NUMBER:   BC-2006-
01850
                                             INDEX CODE:  110.00,
126.00

                                             COUNSEL:  NONE
                                             HEARING DESIRED:   YES




MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  15 DECEMBER 2007




___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Article 15’s imposed upon him on 16 May 79 and 29  Jun  79,  be
set-aside and his grade of E-4 be restored.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His reduction to E-1  has  made  him  unable  to  find  employment.
Potential employers find that his E-1 rating makes him “a risk.”

The Article 15 actions were the only trouble he got into  while  in
the service.  He is too old to get  a  job  that  can  support  his
family.  All he has is his pension which rates him as an  E-1.   If
his pay grade is restored to E-4, he can help his family.

In support  of  his  application,  applicant  provided  a  personal
statement.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant served on active duty  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  from
27 Oct 71 to 24 Aug 79.  His highest grade held was sergeant.

On 8 May 79, applicant received  an  Article  15  for  operating  a
privately owned vehicle (POV) on base while his driving  privileges
had been revoked.  Punishment consisted of a suspended reduction in
grade to airman first class.  The suspension was vacated  when  his
commander recommended additional Article 15 punishment for striking
another  airman.   The  second  nonjudicial  punishment,  effective
29 Jun 79, included a reduction in grade to E-1.  Applicant did not
appeal the punishment.

On 24 Aug 79, applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic
(E-1), under the provisions of  AFR  39-10,  by  reason  of  normal
expiration of service, and given an honorable discharge.  He served
on active duty for 7 years, 9 months, and 28 days.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLAS/JAJM  recommends  the  Board  deny  applicant’s  request   to
reinstate his pay grade prior  to  the  Article  15  actions.   The
applicant’s assertion provides no legal basis for relief.

The set-aside of an Article 15 should  only  be  granted  when  the
evidence presented in the application demonstrates a material error
or injustice.  The Board is empowered to  grant  a  remedy  to  the
applicant if it finds that relief is appropriate.   In  this  case,
besides being untimely, the applicant provides no evidence that the
nonjudicial punishment imposed by the applicant’s commander in 1979
was in error or an injustice.  There is no reason required  by  law
to grant the relief requested.

The applicant does not contest the merits of the  Article  15.   He
simply states that if his pay grade is restored (which  is  assumed
to be that of E-4, which was in effect before the 16 Jun 79 Article
15), he can help his family – apparently this means that  he  would
be able to obtain employment if his  military  record  reflected  a
higher grade for his years of service.  There is no legal basis for
granting the applicant’s request, as his request does not  describe
a clear error or injustice.  While the applicant  states  that  the
Article 15 actions were an injustice, he did not appear  to  object
to the basis of the Article 15 at the time and it would not  be  in
the best interest of the Government to second guess the  motive  of
the commander in initiating this action almost  twenty-seven  years
later.

Applicant contends that his Article 15 actions at Pope AFB are  the
only trouble he “ever got in” and if his pay grade is  returned  he
can help his family.  However,  the  file  contains  an  additional
notification of intent  to  impose  nonjudicial  punishment,  which
appears to have been approved and carried out  on  30  Mar  77  for
operating a POV on Scott AFB while under  a  lawful  order  not  to
operate  a  POV  on  base.   However,  the  second  page  of   that
nonjudicial punishment is not contained in the file.

The complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 14 Jul 06, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of  this
date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D).

___________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of
the applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the
case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of  the
Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its  rationale
as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the
victim of an error or injustice.  While we are sympathetic  to  the
applicant’s dilemma, we find no legal basis to recommend the relief
sought in this case.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to  the
contrary, we find no compelling basis  to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought in this application.

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  Docket  Number
BC-2006-01850 in Executive Session on 24  August  2006,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
      Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
      Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number
BC-2006-01850 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jun 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLAS/JAJM, dated 10 Jul 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jul 06.




                                             MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                             Panel Chair