RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02856
COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. She be reinstated to the rank of Chief Master Sergeant
(CMSgt, E-9).
2. All demotion paperwork be removed from her records.
3. She receive all back pay.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The Air Force Instructions used as the reason for her demotion
were obsolete or not applicable to Air Force Reserve members,
thereby causing the demotion to be invalid. AFI 36-2503,
Administrative Demotion of Airmen, has been obsolete since
31 Dec 2009. Moreover, the authority for the demotion action
was AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Programs, which only applies
to active duty service members and not Air Force Reserve
personnel.
In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of
Notification of Demotion Action under AFI 36-2503 memorandum,
Acknowledgment of Notification, Reserve Order P-10 dated 3 Dec
2010 and various other documents associated with her request.
Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve in
the rank of Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt, E-8). She was
demoted to the rank of SMSgt with a date of rank of 2 Oct 2010,
for failing to fulfill her Senior Noncommissioned Officer (SNCO)
responsibilities.
________________________________________________________________
?
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFRC/JA recommends denial. JA states that the applicant claims
her demotion was improperly processed because AFI 36-2503, which
was cited in her notification memorandum was not in effect at
that time and that AFI 36-2502, which was cited in her demotion
order did not apply to reservists. The applicant failed to
fulfill her SNCO responsibilities; therefore demotion action was
taken. 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. Her entire military record was reviewed
by both the demotion authority and the demotion appellate
authority. This demotion action is appropriate under the
circumstances.
The Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR)
previously addressed this issue in Docket Number BC-2012-02002.
Air Force Reserve enlisted members are promoted and demoted in
accordance with the Air Force Reserve enlisted Promotion and
Demotion Policy, which is executed in accordance with AFPD 36-
25. Further, AFI 33-360, Publications and Forms Management,
para 2.8.2, states "AFPDs and AF supplements to DoDDs may only
be directly implemented by AFIs and AFMANs. However, if no
departmental-level guidance is provided (e.g., AFIs, AFMANs,
etc.), field activities may issue instructions to directly
implement AFPDs and AF supplements to DoDDs." In this case,
after AFRC/JA provided advice to the commander, the commander
issued verbal instructions to directly implement AFI 36-2503,
and AFI 36-2502, which would continue to be used as the
procedural guidance to implement the Air Force Reserve Enlisted
demotion and Promotion Policy. 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.
The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 5 Aug 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of
this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit
D).
________________________________________________________________
?
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 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.
________________________________________________________________
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
in Executive Session on 25 Mar 2013, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2013-02856:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Jun 2013, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/JA, dated 19 Jul 2013.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 2013.
Panel Chair
2
2
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02002
Subsequently, it was determined the former content of AFI 2503, Administrative Demotion of Airman, and AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, dated 6 Aug 02, would continue to be used as the procedural guidance to implement the AFR Enlisted Demotion and Promotion Policy. We took note of the applicant’s arguments regarding the validity of the demotion instructions ,however, we agree with AFRC/A1K recommendation that the use of the former AFI 36-2503 and Air 36-2502 as the procedural guidance...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02419
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a brief from counsel, copies of a Letter of Counseling (LOC), dated 8 May 07, with rebuttal; Letter of Admonishment (LOA), dated 11 Sep 07, with attachments; Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 5 Dec 07 and 31 May 08, with rebuttals; the Notification of Demotion, dated 9 Jun 09; appeal of the demotion action sent to the AFRC Commander (AFRC/CC); demotion action, dated 6 Jan 10, acknowledged on 18 May 10; award certificates; Enlisted Performance...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04813
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) enlisted promotion and demotion policy was folded into an active duty Air Force publication AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, 31 December 2009. Air Force Reserve enlisted members are promoted to chief master sergeant in accordance with AFPD 36-25, Military Promotion and Demotions and Air Force Reserve Enlisted Promotion Policy. Based on this...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00072
Regarding the applicants request that she be given a 20 year active duty retirement with full retirement benefits, A1K states that her medical case which included the applicable documentation that ultimately led to a finding of ILOD was appropriately reviewed and a determination was made on that case by the PEB. The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant certainly...
Applicant's counsel further states the first sentence of AFI 36- 2503 states \\Don't use administrative demotions when it is more appropriate to take actions specified by . A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and states he did everything in accordance with regulations when the Article 15 was offered and he chose a court-martial. The Commander clearly consulted JA and...
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 | 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 | CY2008 | BC-2007-03407
JA states the applicant’s retainability was established by AFI 36-2131, upon accession onto active duty under the protections of sanctuary. If between 1 July 1996 to 21 September 1996 he served on active duty, he could retire in a higher grade under 10 U.S.C 8963. Although he did not specifically request retirement in the highest grade held while on active duty; we have been advised that it has been determined that he served satisfactorily in the grade of MSgt and is eligible to retire in...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00872
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was demoted to staff sergeant (SSgt) less than two years before his retirement. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
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...