RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01045
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  7 October 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His under honorable conditions  (general)  discharge  be  upgraded  to
honorable in his former grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was the victim of an incessant, despotic abuse of authority  by  an
Air Force lieutenant,  frustrated  with  his  assignment  as  squadron
commander.   The  support  expected  of  a  commander  for  a   senior
noncommissioned officer under his command was  non-existent.   He  was
confronted with a financial situation that could  have  been  resolved
without his demotion to  Technical  Sergeant  (TSgt)  or  the  ensuing
Summary Courts Martial that reduced his rank to Staff Sergeant (SSgt).
 He also believes that he was not afforded an adequate defense  during
his Summary Courts Martial.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a  copy  of  his  four  DD
Forms 214.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 August  1965  for  a
period of six years.   On  14  July  1966,  he  was  notified  by  his
commander that he was recommending discharge from the  Air  Force  for
unfitness.  The bases for the recommendation were:  (1)   He  received
13 letters of indebtedness; (2) he received  an  Article  15  and  was
placed on the control roster for failure to pay a just  debt  (in  the
amount of $105.00); and (3) he received a  special  court-martial  for
failure  to  pay  just  debts.   He  acknowledged   receipt   of   the
notification and waived his rights to a  hearing  before  a  board  of
officers and submit statements in his  own  behalf.   The  base  legal
office reviewed the recommendation, found it legally  sufficient,  and
recommended separation with an under  honorable  conditions  (general)
discharge.  The discharge authority concurred with the recommendations
and directed his separation.  He was separated on 29  July  1966.   He
served 14 years, 11 months and 16 days on active duty.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report  which  is
attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS  recommends  denial.   DPPRS  states  the   discharge   was
consistent with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge regulation and was within the discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.  The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify  any
errors in his discharge processing.  He provided no facts warranting a
change to his character of service.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends  denial.   The  applicant  was  ineligible  for
promotion to SMSgt  due  to  his  reduction  in  rank  to  TSgt.   The
commander  was  acting  within  his  authority  when  he  reduced  the
applicant under Article 15 and subsequently demoted him  to  SSgt  per
Special Court-Martial Order #9, 28 June 1966.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 2 Jun 06, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response.  On 29 Jun 06, a copy  of  the  FBI
Report was forwarded to the applicant for review and response  Exhibit
F.

The applicant states that he  was  not  informed  that  he  was  being
recommended to be discharged from the Air  Force  as  unfit.   At  the
onset of  his  discharge,  to  say  he  was  upset  is  an  inadequate
statement.  He lost all the  enthusiasm  that  he  once  had  for  the
service.  He divorced his wife, the source of his  financial  trouble;
he had five years remaining before retirement.   He  would  now  loose
five years of an E-8’s monthly salary.  During those five years it was
likely that he would have been promoted to Chief Master  Sergeant  (E-
9).  He added up two years of drawing an E-9’s monthly  salary.   Then
the heartbreak of  all  retirement.   With  either  an  E-8  or  E-9’s
retirement pay, he would have a financial life boat for his  old  age.
He has paid his penalty; he has  lost  five  years  of  income  and  a
retirement check for each month for the past  twenty-five  years.   He
still finds it difficult to understand how a  situation,  civilian  in
nature, could cause the demise of an exceptional military career.   He
did not ignore his problem; nevertheless, it swallowed  up  everything
he had achieved for over fourteen years.

He  makes  the  following  statement  without  mental  reservation  or
equivocation.  Had his squadron commander  supported  him  instead  of
becoming his antagonist, his bills would have been  paid  without  his
reduction to TSgt or the Special Courts-Martial that  reduced  him  to
SSgt.  The letters and yearly performance reports  that  were  in  his
personnel folder justified that  SMSgt  (E-8)  stripe.   Whatever  his
squadron commander was out to prove, he succeeded.

Gentlemen of the Board, it will  cost  the  United  States  Air  Force
nothing to grant him the honorable discharge and  SMSgt  (E-8)  stripe
that he had earned.  There is no one in today’s Air  Force  that  will
begrudge a reversal of his  general  discharge  or  his  promotion  to
SMSgt.  He was the subject  of  an  Article  15  and  Special  Courts-
Martial, not for a derelict  performance  of  military  duty,  but  to
satisfy  a  frustrated  junior  officer  who  was  a  very  amateurish
personnel manager.

He deeply appreciates each one of the Board members taking the time to
read  his  response  and   respectfully   requests   their   favorable
considering of his case.

The applicant’s arrest record was  accrued  several  years  after  his
discharge from the Air Force.  He is not  trying  to  rejoin  the  Air
Force, he is just trying very hard to regain what he had  earned.   He
respectfully takes this opportunity to mention  again,  that  it  will
cost the United States Air Force nothing to  grant  him  an  honorable
discharge and hopefully his rightful promotion  to  SMSgt  (E-8).   He
most sincerely asks for approval.

Applicant's complete responses are attached at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable 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
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  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.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  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 20  July  2006  and  1  August  2006,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
                 Ms. Leloy W. Cottrell, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Dec 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Report.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Apr 06.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 1 May 06.
      Exhibit F. Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Jun 06 and
                       BCMR dated 29 Jun 06.
      Exhibit G. Applicant’s Responses, dated 9 Jun 06 and
                       3 Jul 06.
      Exhibit H. Applicant’s Response, dated 24 Jul 06.



                             LAURENCE M. GRONER
                             Panel Chair