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 demotion as referenced
under Air National Guard Instruction (ANGI) 36-2503. There was
no documentation leading up to or warranting demotion, no
supporting documentation of rehabilitation or probation actions,
and no opportunity to overcome deficiencies. In addition, the
demotion order was not signed by the correct authority in
accordance with ANGI 36-2503.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of
Notification of Involuntary Demotion Action, Defense Counsel
Memorandum, Special Order ABE3-01, Letter of Appeal, and letters
of support.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
_
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently a member of the Massachusetts Air
National Guard (ANG) serving in the grade of technical sergeant
(E-6).
On 9 August 2012, the applicant was notified of his commanders
intent to demote him from the grade of master sergeant to
technical sergeant for lack of leadership skills, failure to set
a proper example for his team, and conduct unbecoming of a
senior non-commissioned officer (SNCO) who has had a negative
impact upon good order and discipline within the squadron. His
commander indicated that despite several mentoring efforts and
preparation of an improvement plan, the applicant failed and
refused to live up to the standards imposed upon him by Air
Force Instruction 36-2618, Chapter 5, and the proud tradition of
SNCOs.
On 31 October 2012, the applicant was demoted to the grade of
technical sergeant by order of The Adjutant General (TAG) of
Massachusetts.
________________________________________________________________
_
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1PP recommends denial. A1PP states the applicant was
notified by his commander of the recommendation of involuntary
demotion action resulting from his continued violation of SNCO
responsibilities by the operation of his personal motor vehicle
on the installation with an expired inspection sticker which was
in direct violation of several orders from his superiors not to
operate the vehicle on the installation until he obtained a
valid inspection sticker. His commander also identified the
applicants lack of leadership skills and failure to set a
proper example to his team resulting from this issue.
The Defense Counsel of the 104th Fighter Wing recommended the
demotion be terminated immediately noting the demotion as
deficient for several reasons. The applicants commander and
the Joint Force Headquarters (JFHQ) of Massachusetts non-
concurred with the Defense Counsel stating the demotion was
warranted. In addition, the JFHQ Staff Judge Advocate negated
all contentions by the Defense Counsel.
The complete A1PP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 15 March 2013, 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 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
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion 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 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-2013-00986 in Executive Session on 14 November 2013,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00986:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Feb 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1P, dated 13 Mar 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Mar 13.
Panel Chair
2
3
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 02856
This action was taken following the procedures laid out in AFI 36-2503 and AFI 36-2502 as verbally directed by the AFRC/CC under the authority granted him by AFPD 36-25, Military Promotion and Demotion. The Board agreed with the AFRC/AIK recommendation that the use of the former AFI 36- 2503 and AFI 36-2502 as the procedural guidance when implementing Air Force Reserve enlisted demotions and promotions was proper. Exhibit B. Applicants Master personnel Records.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02552
He was told he was eligible for a board hearing of his peers, but that if he would sign the demotion paperwork, he would be demoted with the understanding the Wing Commander could reinstate his grade to MSgt at any time. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In regards to the applicant’s claim he would have requested a board hearing had he known his DOR would have changed, DPFOC contends ANGI 36-2503 does not offer the opportunity for those demoted to appear before a board. The office responsible...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05456
There is no evidence of an error or injustice with regard to his non-selection for promotion to master sergeant. 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 find that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05285
According to Mil Form 88, Record of Proceedings under Article 15, WCMJ, on 17 June 2010, the Assistant Adjutant General imposed nonjudicial punishment on the applicant who was reduced from the rank of MSgt to the rank of SSgt effective 17 June 2010. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In a memorandum dated 6 January 2014, NGB/A1PP recommends correcting the applicants records to reflect his retirement rank as TSgt. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03443
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03443 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _____________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) for the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) be changed from 1 June 12 to 7 April 12. On 31 May 2012, the applicant was promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), effective and with a DOR of 1 June 2012. The remaining...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01607
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 applicant was demoted to senior master sergeant effective 5 November 2009. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00944
The decision of the Selective Retention Review Board (SRRB) to non-retain him was in reprisal for his efforts to correct his civilian personnel records to reflect he was in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) instead of the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). In this case, the state of Michigan followed the appropriate procedural and program requirements during the selective retention process of the applicant. The stated basis of the Boards decision to non-retain the...
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 | 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...