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
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03259
Title 10 USC, Section 1407(f)(2)(B), states if an enlisted member was at any time reduced in grade as the result of a court-martial sentence, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative action, unless the member was subsequently promoted to a higher enlisted grade, the computation of retired pay is determined under Title 10 USC, Section 1406, Retired pay base for members who first became members before September 1980: final basic pay. The applicant further contends the demotion was invalid...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02700
Due to an administrative error by the ARPC retirement technician, the case was not sent to SAFPC for a grade determination and the incorrect grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) was placed on the retirement order. In Thomas, the veteran requested a change in record because of the inequity that would occur otherwise, Id. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01815
On 19 July 2001, SAFPC determined that the applicant did serve satisfactorily in a higher grade within the meaning of Section 8964 and directed applicant’s advancement to the grade of master sergeant (MSgt) on the retired list effective the date of completion of all required service. The commander considered the evidence, including everything the applicant presented, and determined that the applicant committed the offenses and a reduction in grade was the appropriate punishment. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2000-02569
On 22 Mar 90, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAF/PC) determined that the applicant served satisfactorily in the grade of technical sergeant and that he would be advanced to that grade on the Retired List upon reaching 30 years of total service (17 Nov 00). The Board notes that the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council reviewed the applicant's case and determined that he did serve satisfactorily in the grade of technical sergeant and that he has been advanced to...
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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-01160
On 31 Mar 04, the applicant was relieved from active duty and retired, effective 1 Apr 04, in the grade of technical sergeant. 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. 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.
Further medical details are provided in the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation at Exhibit C. On 17 Jan 01, the Hurlburt Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) interviewed the applicant about allegations that he had used marijuana. The medical records corroborate the fact that he was suffering from increased low back pain during the time he used marijuana and he was being treated and evaluated for his pain. The SAFPC considered his entire service performance as well as his...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01521
The applicant’s EPRs prior to this referral report received the highest overall recommendation of “5.” An Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) convened on 7 Mar 97 and recommended the applicant be placed on the Temporary Disability Retirement List (TDRL) with a 30% rating for pain disorder associated with general medical condition, mechanical low back pain, definite industrial impairment. Since the applicant had previously held the higher grade of SRA from 26 Dec 94 to 19 Dec 96, his...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03859
On 4 November 2003, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the demotion action to senior airman with an effective date of rank of 30 October 2003. On 8 January 2004, Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) determined the applicant would be retired in the grade of senior airman by virtue of not serving satisfactorily in the higher grade of technical sergeant. He is requesting that his rank of technical sergeant be restored.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02017
Prior to the larceny, the applicant and SMSgt T__ were in the storage room when the applicant asks SMSgt T__ what was in the box and she said they were gift certificates, which had probably expired. The military judge determined the gift certificates belonged to the Air Force and were not abandoned. He served 21 years, 9 months and 18 days of total active military service.