AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01975
COUNSEL: NONE
IN THE MATTER OF:
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His highest rank of master sergeant (MSgt/E-7) be reinstated.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He is the subject of an injustice as he served satisfactorily in
the grade of MSgt from 1992 thru 1995, until he had a reduction
in grade in November 1995. He was told that he would receive his
grade of MSgt after being separated for ten years.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who was
progressively promoted to the grade of MSgt. On 16 October 1995,
the applicant was offered nonjudicial punishment for committing
indecent acts upon a female under the age of 16 years of age, not
his wife, by fondling her breasts, buttocks, and genital area
with his hands, with intent to gratify his sexual desires. After
consulting counsel, the applicant waived his right to a trial by
court-martial, accepted the Article 15 punishment, and submitted
an appeal to his commander. After considering the applicant’s
submission, the commander found the applicant committed the
alleged offenses. As a result, the applicant received punishment
consisting of reduction in grade to technical sergeant (TSgt/E-
6), with a new date of rank of 16 October 1995.
On 16 October 1995, the commander notified the applicant of his
intent to file the applicant’s Article 15 in his Senior Non-
Commissioned Officer (SNCO) Selection Record. On 6 November
1995, the senior review authority approved the commander’s
decision and directed the applicant’s Article 15 be filed in his
SNCO Selection Record.
The applicant applied for retirement and a highest grade held
determination was completed by the Secretary of the Air Force
Personnel Council. A Secretary of the Air Force memorandum,
dated 7 February 1996, indicates the applicant “did not serve
of
the
substantive
requirements
satisfactorily in any higher grade and will not advance under the
provisions of Section 8964, Title 10, United States Code.”
The applicant retired effective 1 May 1996, in the grade of TSgt.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states the applicant did not
submit any evidence or identify an error or injustice in the
grade determination process. Absent evidence to the contrary,
there is a presumption of regularity in which the applicant was
afforded due process and, that the discharge was consistent with
procedural
grade
and
determination.
The complete DPSOR 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 2 July 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
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.
_________________________________________________________________
2
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-2012-01975 in Executive Session on 15 February 2013,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-01975:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Apr 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 21 Jun 12.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Jul 12.
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
Panel Chair
3
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01771
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01771 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Between the date of his reduction to the grade of Amn (27 Jan 04) and his last day on active duty (31 Dec 04), the applicant held no higher grade than Amn. Based on the applicants date of rank (DOR) to SSgt during cycle 94A5, he was...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03312
His Date of Rank (DOR) to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C) be corrected to 31 Jul 2001 (Administratively Corrected). In a letter dated 10 Jan 2014, AFPC/DPSOE advised the applicant his DOR to the grades of SrA, SSgt, TSgt and MSgt were administratively corrected and that he would receive supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to the grade of SMSgt during the May 2014 Senior Noncommissioned Officer (SNCO) Supplemental Promotion Board. After a thorough review of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04986
On 31 Aug 13, the applicant was relieved from active duty and retired from the Air Force with a reason for separation of voluntary retirement: maximum service or time in grade; in the grade of TSgt. §l407(f)(3), Special Rule for Enlisted Members, applies and should authorize him a higher amount of retirement pay. A review of the applicant's record indicates that as of the retirement date, 1 Aug 13 [sic], he was not promoted to a higher grade following his reduction in 2013, and was retired...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-1995-02187
His records reflect he only held the grade of SSgt. On 27 February 1996, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) considered and denied the applicant’s request for advancement to the grade of TSgt (Exhibit B). On 16 May 2011, AFPC/DPSOR informed the applicant that because he held the grade of SSgt on the date of his retirement, his records correctly reflects his retired grade of SSgt.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02215
Her promotion test to staff sergeant (SSgt) for cycle 88A5 be scored and credited for promotion. DPPPWB finds no error or injustice occurred when the applicant was required to retest after it was discovered that she took the wrong test. ________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04781
On 11 Apr 14, Special Order AC 100052, rescinded Special Order AC-014635 to adjust the applicants service dates, retired grade and highest grade held on active duty. Effective 1 Feb 93, the applicant was retired in the grade of SSgt and credited with 23 years, 11 months and 6 days of active duty. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice noting the Secretary Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) previously considered the...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2004-00487-2
Applicant’s enlistment date was 5 Dec 01 and his date of separation (DOS) was 4 Dec 03. Counsel’s complete submission is at Exhibit K. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: After a careful reconsideration of the applicant's request and his most recent submission, we do not find it sufficiently compelling to warrant a revision of the Board’s prior decision in this case. Exhibit K. Letter, Counsel, dated 23 Nov 08.
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01841
For these acts, the applicant was punished by a reduction in grade to staff sergeant, with a date of rank of 7 Mar 07, and a reprimand. The applicant was rendered a referral EPR for the period 15 Aug 06 through 15 Mar 06 (sic), which included the following statements: During this period member indecently assaulted a female Airman for which he received an Article 15/demotion, and Vast potentialdemonstrated poor judgment unbecoming of an Air Force NCOconsider for promotion. On 18 Mar...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-04464
Service members first must be notified by their commanders of the nature of the charged offense, the evidence supporting the offenses, and the commander’s intent to impose NJP. We find no evidence of an error or injustice that occurred during the NJP proceedings; nor has the applicant provided any evidence which would lead us to believe the NJP was contrary to the provisions of the governing directives, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed, which resulted in his...