RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00494
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His demotions to staff sergeant (SSgt) and technical sergeant
(TSgt) be removed from his record and his rank be restored to
master sergeant with an effective date of 1 Oct 07.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The witness statements were inconsistent, evidence was
intentionally withheld from him and his attorney, the findings of
the investigating officer were not factored into the final
decision, the demotion process was not accomplished in accordance
with the governing instruction, and he was not offered an
Article 15 or court-martial proceedings.
In support of his appeal the applicant provides copies of
documents extracted from his military personnel records, a
personal statement, a photograph, and his college degrees.
Applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
technical sergeant.
On 19 Jun 08, he was demoted from MSgt to SSgt for failure to
fulfill his noncommissioned officer (NCO) responsibilities.
On 27 Jun 08, he requested an appeal of the demotion action due
to pertinent testimony being intentionally withheld from his
defense.
His commander reviewed the request and recommended his rank be
reinstated to TSgt.
On 15 Sep 08, a legal review was conducted and the staff judge
advocate found the case legally sufficient to support the
demotion action and recommended his rank be reinstated to TSgt,
noting that although he failed to fulfill his responsibilities as
a MSgt, all of the facts and circumstances weigh in favor of his
ability to satisfactorily fulfill his responsibilities as a TSgt.
On 30 Sep 08, the applicants appeal was granted in part and his
rank was reinstated to TSgt with an effective date of rank (DOR)
of 19 Jun 08.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE noted there is no evidence
of an error or an injustice in the processing of the demotion
action. The actions taken against the applicant were permissible
administrative actions taken at the discretion of his supervisors
and commanders and within the scope of the governing
instructions. His commander acted within his authority.
The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant indicates that while he does not disagree with
whether or not his commander acted within his authority, he does
not believe the demotion action was a just punishment. He is
fighting the demotion because there were events that preceded
this injustice.
He requests his entire 20-year career and impeccable record be
considered and the demotion overturned. He believes the facts
were being continuously overlooked at every level, and the focus
should be whether his commander had the authority to levy such a
harsh punishment. The question is was the punishment a just one.
He further believes his punishment should have been the Letter of
Reprimand to serve as a reminder that any occurrence of this
nature or any other will not be tolerated and will be dealt with
more severely.
The applicants 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 not timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice. We took
notice of the applicants complete submission, to include his
rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case. The
applicant acknowledges that his commander did not exceed his
discretionary authority in demoting him; however, he believes the
demotion action was not just and unduly harsh given his career
record of performance and when weighing the total circumstances
of his misconduct. We note that initially the applicant was
demoted two grades to the grade of staff sergeant, but after his
appeal, the commander restored him to the grade of technical
sergeant. We are not persuaded that the commanders final
decision to demote the applicant by one grade was unjust, in
error, or arbitrary and capricious. In fact, it appears the
commander gave the applicant due process in coming to his
decision. The evidence of record supports that the demotion
action, with the exception of a minor error which was rectified,
was processed in accordance with the governing instruction and
was within the commanders discretion. Therefore, in the absence
of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2010-00494 in Executive Session on 23 Sep 10, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2010-00494 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Feb 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 19 Mar 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 10.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04268
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of applicants requests to remove the contested EPRs ending 12 Aug 09 and 29 Jun 10. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant reversing his demotion to the grade of SSgt, promoting him to the grade of MSgt with back pay or removing the contested EPRs from his record. Therefore, aside from DPSOEs recommendation to time bar the applicants...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04035 (2)
In a letter dated 22 Oct 13, the demotion authority reinstated his grade to SSgt with his original Date of Rank (DOR) of 9 Jan 13. As such, if the applicant wants to make a request to remove the referral EPRs, he must first exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief provided by existing law or regulations, such as the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) prior to seeking relief before this Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02310
On 6 Jan 10, he was driving when he dropped his cell phone. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8 Sep 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01841
For these acts, the applicant was punished by a reduction in grade to staff sergeant, with a date of rank of 7 Mar 07, and a reprimand. The applicant was rendered a referral EPR for the period 15 Aug 06 through 15 Mar 06 (sic), which included the following statements: During this period member indecently assaulted a female Airman for which he received an Article 15/demotion, and Vast potentialdemonstrated poor judgment unbecoming of an Air Force NCOconsider for promotion. On 18 Mar...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02847
In a letter dated 2 June 2015, SAF/MRBR provided the applicant an opportunity to request that her case be administratively closed until such time as her case is resolved through the appropriate IG authority and requested she respond within 30 days (Exhibit G). After considering the applicants appeal, several character statements and the Staff Judge Advocates legal review, the demotion authority approved the demotion action on 24 February 2014. As such, an applicant must first exhaust all...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02085
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02085 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02824
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C. _____________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicants request to remove the Article 15 and states, in part, nonjudicial punishment is authorized by Article 15, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. Consequently, he appealed the Article 15 on the basis that he was not provided...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02570
After considering the applicant's appeal and the Staff Judge Advocate's (SJA) legal review, the demotion authority approved the demotion action from MSgt to TSgt effective 20 Nov 13. The applicant's fitness records were not present in the Air Force Fitness Management System and were not provided by the applicant as evidence. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant notes that her case is based on failure to remain fit in a 24...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00694
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00694 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His demotion from the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt/E-6) to the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt/E-5) be rescinded. The applicants most recent FA results are as follows: Date Composite Score Rating 4 Apr 13 87.25 Satisfactory 21 Jun...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03754
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03754 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The complete HQ USAF/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends voiding the three contested EPRs,contingent upon the Board approving the applicants request to have his FA test results removed from his records. e. His effective date...