RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00215
                                             INDEX CODE:  100.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.                COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                       HEARING DESIRED:  YES



MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  23 July 2007


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be advanced on the retired list at 30 years of  service  to  the  highest
grade he satisfactorily held - master sergeant.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His six plus years  of  sustained  performance  as  a  master  sergeant  far
exceeded  the  “satisfactory”  requirement  of  the  governing   Air   Force
Instruction (AFI) and United States Code  (USC).   All  six  of  his  Senior
Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) are firewall 5s.  In  addition,  he  was
awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) and two Meritorious  Service
Medals (MSMs).  Even after the Article 15 and demotion action, he  continued
to excel as reflected is his first EPR rendered after the punishment.


In  support  of  the  appeal,  applicant  submits  copies   of   his   EPRs,
decorations, DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or  Discharge  from  Active
Duty, and the Secretary of  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Council  (SAFPC)  24
February 2004 decision that he did not serve satisfactorily  in  any  higher
grade than technical sergeant and would not be advanced on the retired  list
at 30 years.


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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 November 1984  and  entered
active  duty.   He  was  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  master
sergeant.

On 5 March 2002, he  was  notified  of  his  commander’s  intent  to  impose
nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of  the  Uniform  Code  of  Military
Justice  (UCMJ)  for  violating  Article  128.   Specifically,  that  on  14
November 2001, he unlawfully touched and fondled Airman First Class K---  on
her breast with his hands.

After consulting with counsel, he  waived  his  right  to  trial  by  court-
martial and accepted the  nonjudicial  punishment.   After  considering  the
written matters submitted by applicant, on  15  March  2002,  the  commander
determined  he  committed  the  offense  alleged  and   imposed   punishment
consisting of reduction to the grade of technical  sergeant  (E-6),  with  a
new Date of Rank (DOR) of 15 March 2002,  30  days  of  extra  duty,  and  a
reprimand.  He appealed the decision; however, his appeal was denied.  On  3
February 2004, he applied for  voluntary  retirement,  effective  1 December
2004.

On 24 February 2004, the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Council
(SAFPC) determined that he did not serve satisfactory in  any  higher  grade
other than technical sergeant and that he  would  not  be  advanced  on  the
retired list at 30 years.  On 30 November 2004, he was relieved from  active
duty and retired in the grade of technical  sergeant  effective  1  December
2004.  He completed 20 years and 29 days of active service.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRP recommends the application be denied and states,  in  part,  that
the SAF determined that he did not serve satisfactorily in the higher  grade
of master sergeant and that he would not be advanced  under  the  provisions
of 10 USC §  8964.   The  SAF  considered  not  only  laudatory  actions  in
determining his advancement  to  higher  grade  but  also  his  unacceptable
conduct.  For that unacceptable conduct, the  SAF  found  that  he  did  not
serve satisfactorily in the higher grade of master sergeant.

The AFPC/DPPRP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He accepted his punishment when all other avenues of appeal were  exhausted,
and has paid dearly for his actions on one night.  However,  he  should  not
be punished for the rest of his life when his  past  and  present  behaviors
are not indicative of the incident on that night.  Although he  agrees  that
his actions were unacceptable, that one incident  should  not  discount  his
outstanding record of performance.  He did not  serve  satisfactorily  as  a
master sergeant, but outstanding as a senior noncommissioned officer (NCO).

In  further  support  of  the  appeal,  applicant  submits  nine   character
statements which indicate that what he was accused of was not indicative  of
his past or future behavior or performance.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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.   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 it’s rationale as  the  basis  for  our  conclusion
that the applicant has not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.
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(s) 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-2006-00215
in Executive Session on 27 April 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member
                       Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Jan 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 9 Mar 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Mar 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Mar 06, w/atchs.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair