RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02087
COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Vacate her demotion to the grade of Senior Airman.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The procedures used by her unit for the recommended demotion
does not follow the procedure outlined in the regulation.
In support of her request the applicant submits a copy of a
personal memorandum which includes her counsels legal analysis
and copies of documents pertaining to the demotion actions.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Air National Guard
(ANG) in the grade of E-4, Senior Airman. Her date of rank
(DOR) is 14 April 2012.
On 24 February 2012, the applicant received notification from
the unit wing commander that he was recommending her for
demotion to the grade of E-4, Senior Airman. The specific
reason for the demotion was; the applicant did on 2 February
2012, knowingly and willfully made a false accusation of
unethical behavior against several members of her unit to
include her squadron commander.
On 24 February 2012, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the
notification and her rights to legal counsel and to concur or
non-concur with the demotion action.
Subsequent to the demotion package being found legally
sufficient on 6 April 2012, the applicant was demoted to the
grade of Senior Airman, E-4, by special order AQ-49, dated
14 April 2012.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1PP recommends denial. A1PS states available documentation
does not support the applicants request. Their interpretation
of the instruction is the unit commander may recommend
demotion of an enlisted ANG member under his/her command. It
does not state the unit commander must take this action. They
feel the wing commander made the demotion recommendation based
on the fact that the squadron commander was one of the unit
members of whom the applicant knowingly and willfully made a
false accusation of unethical behavior against. A
recommendation for demotion made by the squadron commander could
have reasonably been seen as a form of reprisal against the
applicant.
The complete NGB/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
NGB/A1PS states they concur with the NGB subject matter expert
(SME) and therefore, do not recommend relief for the applicant.
The demotion package was reviewed and found to be legally
sufficient by the states ANG staff judge advocate.
The complete NGB/A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 17 September 2012 for review and comment within
30 days (Exhibit E). To date, this office has not received a
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 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 offices of primary responsibility and adopt
their rationale as the basis for our 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 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(s)
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 this application
BC-2012-02087 in Executive Session on 23 January 2013, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 5 May 2012, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 27 June 2012.
Exhibit D. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 2 July 2012.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 September 2012.
Panel Chair
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00824
According to Special Order (SO) A-7, dated 6 Oct 06, on 15 Oct 06, The Adjutant General (TAG) of Pennsylvania Air National Guard (PA ANG), demoted the applicant to the grade of MSgt for failure to fulfill his Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) responsibilities. According to a memorandum, dated 10 Oct 13, from TAG, the denied the applicants appeal, dated 21 Aug 13, and determined that his appeal was untimely based on his submission 6 years after the events occurred. Further, while we note...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00986
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00986 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Demotion Order ABE3-01, dated 31 October 2012, be revoked and he be returned to the rank of master sergeant (E-7) ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Due process was not followed to request...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00677
ANG Instruction (ANGI) 36-2002, Enlistment and Reenlistment in the Air National Guard and as a Reserve of the Air Force, states in cases of contractual errors, the Force Support Squadron (FSS) will process a case file to the National Guard Bureau (NGB) outlining the facts of the situation, along with the individual airmans desire, the commanders recommendation and the FSS comments and recommendation; and that the airman may petition the Board if they do not agree with the final decision. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03217
He testified against his wing commander in an Inspector General (IG) investigation and believes he was reprised against when his commander demoted him for having an unprofessional relationship. The original non-judicial punishment (NJP) notification served by the wing commander violated his due process rights when he was pulled back and re-served the NJP based on information directly relating to the Commander-Directed Investigation (CDI). On 8 Oct 09, the NY TAG denied the AGR Removal for...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03031
JA states that based on the facts presented in the NGB opinions, JA finds their responses to be legally sufficient and concurs with the recommendations to deny the applicant's requests for corrective action related to ACP payments, Board# V0611A, AGR separation from ANG Selective Retention Review Board (SRRB) consideration, and TERA. Counsels complete response is at Exhibit N. _______________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PF...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01276
However, as of Jan 14, there was no record of the Article 15 action. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM did not provide a recommendation; however, they noted the applicants request should be forwarded to the Air Force Personnel Center to have her DOR reviewed. Exhibit D. Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 9 Feb 15.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00803
The complete A1P evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANTS REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He was denied promotion because the MS ANG reneged on his assignment orders without advising him just weeks after arriving on station. The resource to promote him to the grade of SMSgt as reflected on his orders was taken away when another member was placed in his position. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03830
Thereafter, the 109th Force Support Squadron (109th FSS) Commander demoted the applicant to staff sergeant with an effective date and date of rank of 22 Jan 10. After a review of the information provided and the additional information provided by her unit, A1POE was not able to find sufficient evidence to determine she was not given due process. The complete NGB/A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-05912
In addition, the Department of Defense Inspector General (IG DoD/MRI) concurred with the determination, approved the report, and substantiated the allegations (Exhibit B). We note that based on the Report of Investigation (ROI) from the SAF/IG the applicant was the victim of reprisal under the Whistleblower Protection Act (10 USC 1034) by his former commander who denied his reenlistment and attendance at the Chief Executive Course (CEC). Other than the comments in the ROI, the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00655
By letter dated 28 Jan 13, the applicants commander states that due to an administrative oversight the applicant signed a three year reenlistment contract; however, he should have been given the opportunity extend his enlistment for six years. Until such time as he has exhausted all available administrative remedies, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief requested. Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 21 Mar 13.