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. His administrative demotion to the grade of staff sergeant 
(E-5) be rescinded and his rank of technical sergeant (E-6) be 
restored with all financial reimbursement back to 2 Nov 09. 

 

3. He receive supplemental promotion consideration to the grade 
of master sergeant (E-7) for all appropriate promotion cycles 
missed under the Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was administratively demoted based on an off-base incident of 
driving under the influence (DUI). Since jurisdiction of the 
case was not obtained from the local authorities, AFI 36-2503, Administrative Demotion of Airmen, was exploited by using the 
vague terminology in it to justify a demotion. 

 

His overall military record and the opportunity to overcome 
deficiencies before proceeding with demotion actions were not 
properly taken into account. He was offered blanket statements 
and a biased legal review as justification, which makes him 
question how thoroughly his package was reviewed before the 
action was taken. 

 

The section used in the AFI technically covers all non-
commissioned officers (NCOs); however, it seems to be only aimed 
at the middle ranks, with most senior NCOs being eligible to 
retire and senior/chief master sergeants having to be forwarded 
to the major command (MAJCOM) level, leaving staff/technical 
sergeants most susceptible to be adversely affected in the short 
and long term. 

 

His leadership entrusted him after the initial incident by 
elevating him to the noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC) in 
one of the busiest work centers in the squadron, a position he 
held until his demotion. 

 

Based on his 13 years of service/experience, and after talking to 
senior leaders and speaking with area defense counselors (ADCs), 
this was an uncommon practice to send his package up to 
wing/group level; these types of cases were normally handled by 
the squadron commander. 

 


Although double jeopardy was technically avoided since his 
administrative demotion was not considered punishment, it is 
conceivable to believe had the base been given jurisdiction, a 
demotion could have been his form of punishment under the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 

 

Other members of his squadron who received DUIs both before and 
after he did, did not receive a reduction in rank, even in cases 
where jurisdiction was turned over to the base. 

 

He was punished twice for the same infraction: 1) His 
reinstatement package was not sent to the group level as the AFI 
states, and 2) It took 10 months to process the demotion action, 
making his new date of rank (DOR) after 31 Jul 09, which makes 
him ineligible for WAPS testing until 2012. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, and various documents related to his administrative 
demotion. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the Regular 
Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant. 

 

On 1 Oct 09, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent 
to recommend to the group commander that the applicant be demoted 
to the grade of staff sergeant. The reason for the proposed 
action was: On 18 Jan 09, the applicant operated a vehicle while 
drunk. 

 

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed demotion 
action, and after consulting with legal counsel, waived his 
rights to a personal hearing before the commander. On 13 Oct 09, 
the applicant submitted a written response and character 
statements. His ADC also provided a response. 

 

The group commander, after considering the entire package and 
submitted information, concurred with the recommendation for the 
administrative demotion. 

 

On 2 Nov 09, the applicant was demoted from technical sergeant to 
staff sergeant. 

 

On 16 Nov 09, the applicant appealed the demotion action, and his 
appeal was denied. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 


AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states the commander acted 
within his authority to demote the applicant from TSgt to SSgt, 
in accordance with AFI 36-2503, paragraph 3.3 (Failure to fulfill 
NCO responsibilities). 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 1 Jul 11, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to 
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a 
response has not been received (Exhibit C). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 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 its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In 
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 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-2011-02085 in Executive Session on 4 Oct 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 


 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 May 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 9 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jul 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair