AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS  

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-01607 
 
COUNSEL: NONE  
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His  administrative  demotion  to  the  grade  of  senior  master 
sergeant be revoked and he be reinstated to the grade of chief 
master sergeant. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
The  charges  brought  about  were  founded  on  circumstantial 
evidence.    After  a  night  in  downtown  Rota,  he  returned  to  his 
room  and  tripped  over  misplaced  furniture.    He  notified 
emergency  services  personnel  and  was  treated  at  the  facility.  
Sworn  statements  from  six  crew  members  attest  to  the  fact  that 
his  level  of  intoxication  that  evening  did  not  lend  itself  to 
careless behavior.   
 
Even  in  the  dissenting  statement,  inconsistencies  call  into 
question  its  relevance.    Crew  members  and  medical  personnel 
state that he was vomiting and that it was difficult for him to 
sit and remain compliant with the inspection.  However, it was a 
combination of fatigue, pain and narcotic side effects that left 
him  being  atypical  of  his  normally  professional  demeanor.    He 
does not understand how his behavior, while drugged and in pain 
constitutes dereliction of duties. 
 
Proper  procedures  were  not  followed  regarding  the  presentation 
of charges.  Upon his return to duty, he was presented with UCMJ 
charges: Article 87, missing a movement, Article 92, Dereliction 
of  Duty,  and  Article  134,  Drunkenness.    He  signed  and 
acknowledged the charges.  The charges were later rescinded and 
he  was  presented  with  administrative  demotion.    Instead  of  a 
trial,  where  evidence  and  witnesses  could  be  presented,  he  was 
saddled with a quick and easy administrative demotion.  He does 
not believe that is an appropriate avenue for a Senior NCO. 
 
The proper avenue of rebuttal was not available to him.  He was 
given  no  further  recourse  other  than  a  letter  of  rebuttal  and 
one  further  appeal.    Over  his  35-year  service  record,  he  has 
flown over 3500 sorties and amassed over 15,000 hours of flying 
time, of which over 1000 were combat missions.  He has dedicated 

 
 
his  life  to  mission  accomplishment  and  attaining  the  highest 
level of leadership.   
 
A  series  of  misunderstandings,  inappropriate  procedures  and 
unfortunate  circumstances  have  rendered  him  dishonored  and  in 
the face of evidence, that bears the contrary.  He humbly asks 
the Boards consideration of all the facts and the breadth of the 
evidence presented when evaluating his appeal.  
 
In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal 
statement  and  witness  statements  from  the  command  directed 
investigation (CDI). 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The applicant is a member of the Air Force Reserves serving in 
the  grade  of  senior  master  sergeant.    On  30  May  2009,  the 
applicant  was  a  chief  master  sergeant  on  temporary  duty  via 
Title  10  orders  to  Rota  Naval  Air  Station,  Spain.      In  his 
written  statement,  he  admitted  to  consuming  several  beers 
between 2000 and 0130.  Additionally, witness statements include 
the  possibility  of  a  shot  of  liquor.  After  returning  to  his 
billeting  room,  the  applicant  tripped  on  the  frame  of  the  bed 
and  was  injured  by  the  resulting  fall.  Approximately  one  hour 
later,  he  awoke  in  severe  pain  with  difficulty  breathing.    The 
medical  report  states  he  was  admitted  at  0440.    The  physical 
exam  indicated  a  blood  alcohol  level  of  .286,  more  than  three 
times,  the  legal  limit.    He  was  placed  on  (DNIF)  duty  not 
including flying, due to the rib injury.  He was replaced by a 
master  sergeant.    The  contingency  mission  was  delayed  by  12 
hours due to crew rest violation of two of the crew members. 
 
This incident led to a Commander Directed Investigation (CDI) in 
which the Investigating Officer (IO) was directed to investigate 
the following: 
 
  1.  The applicant was on or about 31 May 2009, incapacitated to 
properly perform his duties through prior wrongful indulgence in 
intoxicating liquor – unsubstantiated. 
 
  2.  The applicant was on or about 31 May 2009, drunk and which 
conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces 
– substantiated. 
 
  3.  The applicant was on or about 31 May 2009, derelict in the 
performance of his duties as a Senior NCO, specifically a Chief, 
by  failing  to  uphold  the  responsibilities  of  remaining 
physically  and  mentally  ready  to  complete  the  required  mission 

2  
 

 
 
as a result of the excessive use of alcohol in violation of AFI 
36-2618, paragraphs 4.1 and 5.1 - substantiated.  
 
The  IO  recommended  the  commander  impose  a  Letter  of  Reprimand 
with  placement  of  an  Unfavorable  Information  File  (UIF).    He 
further  stated  that  Letter’s  of  Counseling  and  Admonishment 
would not be commensurate with level of misconduct or rank.  He 
stated  he  did  not  believe  administrative  demotion  was 
appropriate.    He  also  stated  administrative  discharge  would  be 
too severe.  
 
As a result of the CDI, the commander notified the applicant of 
his intent to demote him from the grade of chief master sergeant 
to senior master sergeant.  The specific reason for the demotion 
action  was  the  applicant’s  failure  in  NCO  responsibilities  as 
defined in AFI 36-2618,  The  Enlisted  Force  Structure by failing 
to  maintain  exemplary  standards  of  behavior  in  his  personal 
conduct.  His extreme intoxication on the morning of 31 May 2009 
led to his failure under paragraphs 4.1 and 5.1 as follows: 
 
  a. He  was  not  mentally  ready  to  accomplish  the  mission  as 
required  due  to  his  excessive  and  irresponsible  consumption  of 
alcohol, which interrupted crew-rest for a critically important 
mission.   
 
  b. He failed to provide high quality leadership as required by 
5.1.1;  as  noted;  a  SNCO’s  primary  purpose  is  mission 
accomplishment.”  Although  he  was  off  duty,  he  was  still  on 
military  orders  and  his  excessive  alcohol  consumption  impacted 
the scheduling of the mission and delayed a flight. 
 
  c. As  a  chief  master  sergeant  he  must  epitomize  the  finest 
qualities  of  a  military  leader.    His  excessive  alcohol 
consumption was the trigger for a series of events that brought 
discredit  upon  himself  and  caused  a  detrimental  impact  on  a 
critical mission. 
 
The  applicant  acknowledged  his  commander’s  intent  and  non-
concurred with the proposed demotion action.  He stated he would 
submit  matters,  waived  his  right  to  a  personal  hearing  and 
consulted  counsel.    The  applicant  submitted  a  second 
notification letter requesting a personal hearing. 
 
On 5 November 2009, the commander approved the demotion action.  
The  applicant  was  notified  of  the  decision  on  6  November  2009 
and elected to appeal the demotion action.  On 3 May 2010, the 
appellate authority denied the applicant’s appeal and concurred 
with  the  demotion  authority’s  decision.    The  applicant  was 
demoted to senior master sergeant effective 5 November 2009.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
 

3  
 

however, 

allegation 

1 

substantiated, 

 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFRC/JA  recommends  denial.    AFI  36-2503,  Administrative 
Demotions of Airmen, 20 July 1994 was in effect at the relevant 
time of this demotion action.  Paragraph 1.5 described demotion 
of  Reserve  airmen  stating:  demotions  are  administrative  and 
apply  to  Reserve  airmen  in  the  grades  of  airmen  through  chief 
master sergeant.  Do not use demotions in place of actions under 
the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Paragraph 1.3 states, if 
the commander has sufficient reason to initiate demotion action, 
use  the  entire  military  record  in  deciding  whether  demotion  is 
appropriate; paragraph 1.4 states, when appropriate, give airmen 
an  opportunity  to  overcome  their  deficiencies  before  demotion 
action  is  initiated.    Commanders  should  maintain  supporting 
documentation  of  all  rehabilitation  and  probationary  actions; 
paragraph 17.3 describes demotions basis of “failure to fulfill 
NCO responsibilities and refers to The Enlisted Force Structure, 
paragraphs 4.1 and 5.1. The CDI IO found that allegations 2 and 
3  were 
was  not 
substantiated.    
 
The applicant had an extremely high blood alcohol content on the 
morning  in  question  as  determined  by  a  laboratory  test  made  in 
conjunction  with  medical  treatment  and  as  corroborated  by 
witnesses.    His  injury  and  subsequent  medical  treatment 
interrupted  crew  rest  for  one  mission  and  required  another  NCO 
to  be  flown  to  Rota  to  take  his  place  in  the  Presidential 
Support  mission.    The  IO  did  not  find  sufficient  evidence  to 
conclude  that  intoxication  was  the  cause  of  the  applicant’s 
incapacitation  to  perform  his  duties.    The  IO  is  correct  in 
concluding  that  the  injuries  might  have  occurred  even  if  the 
applicant  had  been  sober.    It  would  be  unfair  to  blame  the 
applicant  and  his  possible  overindulgence  in  alcohol  for  the 
consequences that followed, such as the interrupted crew rest or 
the flying in of the replacement crew member. 
 
It  is,  however,  fair  to  hold  the  applicant  accountable  for  his 
behavior  on  the  night  in  question,  especially  at  the  hospital, 
which was inappropriate and unbefitting a Senior NCO.  As the IO 
mentioned,  the  applicant’s  conduct  in  the  hospital  in  the 
presence of a superior commissioned officer who had to persuade 
him  to  remain  in  the  hospital  clearly  brings  discredit  upon 
himself and the Armed Forces.  In addition, he displayed drunken 
conduct in the presence of junior airmen in his squadron and the 
medical staff at the hospital.  During the entire situation, he 
failed to demonstrate effective leadership, and failed to ensure 
his ability to maintain the highest level of readiness.   
 
AFI  36-2503  states  that  demotion  action  will  not  be  used  in 
place of UCMJ action.  In this case, the applicant was on Title 
10 orders and was subject to the UCMJ action.  However, that was 
the commander’s option.  There is no evidence that the demotion 
was  used  in  place  of,  or  as  an  end  run  around  to  the  UCMJ.  
While  the  AFI  recommends  giving  airmen  the  opportunity  to 

4  
 

 
 
overcome  their  deficiencies,  in  appropriate  cases  before 
demotion action is initiated, there are some instances where it 
is  neither  necessary  or  appropriate.    A  chief  master  sergeant 
becoming  so  drunk  that  he  is  either  unable  or  unwilling  to 
cooperate with medical personnel and where drinking possibly has 
a negative effect on the mission would appear to be such a case. 
 
The complete AFRC/JA 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  7  September  2012  for  review  and  comment  within 
30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, this office has received 
no response. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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 
note  of  the  applicant’s  contentions  regarding  his  demotion. 
Notwithstanding  the  applicant’s  view,  we  find  insufficient 
evidence  that  the  applicant  was  denied  any  rights  to  which  he 
was  entitled  under  the  administrative  demotion  process,  to 
include  his  right  to  appeal.    We  do  not  find  the  commander 
abused  his  discretionary  authority  or  that  his  actions  were 
arbitrary  or  capricious.    The  applicant  has  not  provided 
evidence that shows the demotion was not processed in accordance 
with  applicable  policy  and  procedures.    As  such,  we  agree  with 
the AFRC/JA and adopt its rationale as the primary basis for our 
determination  and  find  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. 
 
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: 

5  
 

 
 
 
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-2012-01607  in  Executive  Session  on  18  December  2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Apr 12, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. Letter, Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/JA, dated 19 Jun 12. 
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Sep 12. 

, Panel Chair 
, Member 
, Member 

 
Panel Chair 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 

6