RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03859
INDEX CODE: 131.02
COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His rank of technical sergeant (E-6) be reinstated.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was unjustly demoted. Despite his excellent career, two female airmen
misinterpreted his friendliness, kindness and claimed he acted
inappropriately.
In support of his application, applicant provides a legal brief, a
statement from his mother, a personal statement, a copy of his DD Form 214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and a letter from the
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 1
March 1984. He was progressively promoted to the grade of technical
sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1
Sep 01.
On 25 August 2003, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to
recommend his demotion to the grade of senior airman (E-4) based on Air
Force Instruction 36-2503, Administrative Demotion of Airmen, para 3.3,
Failure to Fulfill NCO Responsibilities. The specific reason for this
action was his failure to fulfill his noncommissioned officer (NCO)
responsibilities including maintenance of exemplary standards of behavior
at all times, including personal conduct, both on and off duty. His
commander decided to demote the applicant because he had repeatedly made
offensive, insulting, degrading, and disrespectful comments of a sexual
nature to two female airmen. The commander noted his repeated willful
misconduct, unprofessional behavior, and blatant disregard for the Air
Force’s “zero tolerance” policy against sexual harassment as a gross
deviation from the conduct that is expected of an NCO. The applicant
acknowledged receipt and indicated he did not concur with the proposed
demotion. He requested a personal hearing before the commander and to
consult with counsel.
On 26 September 2003, a legal review found the case legally sufficient and
recommended approval of his demotion to senior airman.
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.
The applicant appealed the demotion and on 14 November 2003, the wing
commander reviewed and disapproved his appeal.
On 17 November 2003, the applicant applied for and was granted a 1 April
2004 retirement date.
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. However, SAFPC found the applicant did serve satisfactorily in
the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) and directed the applicant's advancement
to SSgt on the retired list effective 1 March 2014 upon completion of a
total of 30 years active service plus service on the retired list.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial and states that SAFPC found that the applicant
did not serve satisfactorily in the higher grade of technical sergeant and
determined that his advancement under Title 10, Section 8964 would be to
the lower grade of staff sergeant.
AFPC/DPSOR's complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states the demotion was
very harsh and unwarranted and it should be corrected. He believes he
should have been disciplined but not reduced in grade by two stripes. The
comments were inappropriate; however, it was not sexual harassment. At the
present time, it is very difficult to find employment with this false
stigma hanging over his head. He has been trying to re-establish his
reputation, integrity and rank with the help of his lawyer. He is
requesting that his rank of technical sergeant be restored.
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 an error or an injustice. We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree
with the opinion and the 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 an injustice. While
the applicant may believe his demotion was unfair, it appears there is
sufficient documentation indicating the applicant’s unsatisfactory conduct
was not commensurate with the behavior expected of an NCO. Furthermore, we
noted that the applicant received a referral enlisted performance report
based on similar misconduct from a previous assignment. In view of the
foregoing, we conclude that no basis exists 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 issues 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 a 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-2007-03859
in Executive Session on 29 May 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member
Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007-
03859 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Oct 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/AFPC/DPSOR, dated 3 Mar 08, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Apr 08.
Exhibit E. Applicant's response, dated 5 May 08.
WAYNE R. GRACIE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02496
On 26 February 2003, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) determined the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in his highest grade held of master sergeant (E-7) within the meaning of Section 8964, Title 10, United States Code. The applicant has not provided any evidence that the court-martial conviction or sentence were the result of error or injustice. When an enlisted member is demoted and retires in a grade lower than the highest grade held on active duty, 10 USC,...
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 | CY2005 | BC-205-02185
On 9 Sep 86, the commander notified the applicant that the results of the positive urinalysis would not be used to characterize his service. On 29 Oct 86, the applicant was advised that at anytime before action on the recommendation for discharge was complete, he could apply for retirement. To date, a response has not been received.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00643
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force which is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. On 16 Feb 12, the applicant initiated a request for retirement. The demotion action following his second alcohol-related offense was warranted and he...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00643
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force which is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. On 16 Feb 12, the applicant initiated a request for retirement. The demotion action following his second alcohol-related offense was warranted and he...
Applicant's counsel further states the first sentence of AFI 36- 2503 states \\Don't use administrative demotions when it is more appropriate to take actions specified by . A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and states he did everything in accordance with regulations when the Article 15 was offered and he chose a court-martial. The Commander clearly consulted JA and...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00640
She enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 January 1985 and was released from active duty on 5 April 1988 and transferred to the Reserves of the Air Force on 6 April 1988 and discharged on 3 February 1999. The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 30 May 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03563
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPWB recommended denial noting the applicant was administratively demoted from TSgt to SrA with a DOR of 15 Jul 03. 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. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00197
The applicant has not provided documentation from his unit commander or primary care manager for invalidating the FA, nor did he provide the specific FA failure. The applicant held the grade of SSgt on the date of his retirement; therefore, his record correctly reflects his retired grade as SSgt. On 11 Dec 13, the Secretary of the Air Force found the applicant served satisfactorily in the grade of TSgt and ordered his advancement to the grade of TSgt when his time on active duty and his...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02831
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: According to a letter he received from the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) dated 23 January 2012, he should have been discharged in the grade of Staff Sergeant instead of Senior Airman. On 23 August 2012, AFPC/DPSOE notified the applicant by letter (Exhibit D) that although SAFPC determined that he served satisfactorily in the grade of Staff Sergeant, it was for disability purposes...