RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00202
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His administrative demotion to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C/E-3) be removed from his record and he be restored to his prior rank of Senior Airman (SrA/E-4).
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
After his Squadron Commander (TRS/CC) chose not to demote him, a demotion action code was erroneously entered into his record.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 23 Feb 10.
On 27 Feb 12, the applicant received a Letter or Reprimand (LOR) for allowing a fellow Airman to drive while intoxicated. The LOR was filed in an Unfavorable Information File (UIF).
On 12 Mar 12, the applicants commander notified him he intended to recommend him for demotion to the grade of E-3 for not fulfilling his junior enlisted Airmans responsibilities. Specifically, he accompanied another Airman as a passenger in a vehicle after he knew the other Airman had been drinking, therefore failing to adhere to the Wingman concept.
On 19 Mar 12, after reviewing the written statement submitted by the applicant and meeting with the applicant in person, the applicants commander indicated the action should proceed on the demotion paperwork.
On 22 Mar 12, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) recommended the demotion authority disapprove the administrative demotion of the applicant, indicating that said action was disproportionate to the circumstances as other airmen who had committed more egregious acts of misconduct were not demoted.
On 30 Mar 12, the demotion authority directed the applicant be administratively demoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3).
Under Special Order AA-010, dated 30 Mar 12, the applicant was demoted to the permanent grade of E-3, with an effective date of rank of 30 Mar 12.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Forces office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The TRS/CC is not the demotion authority and therefore does not have the authority to remove the demotion action. Although the TRS/CC provides a statement that he chose not to demote the applicant, the documentation in the applicants record reflects his decision/recommendation to demote. On 19 Mar 12, after receiving the applicants response to the demotion notification, the TRS/CC made his decision to continue processing the demotion action. A legal review was conducted and although the Staff Judge Advocate did not concur with the demotion action, it was nevertheless found to be legally sufficient. The demotion authority, the Group Commander, agreed with the TRS/CCs recommendation and directed the applicant be demoted. Should the applicant obtain the demotion authoritys support of his request, an exception to policy request can be submitted through administrative channels to AFPC.
A complete copy of the AFPC/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 28 Jul 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
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 notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of AFPC/DPSOE and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. The Board acknowledges both the recommendation by the Wing Judge Advocate (JA) to disapprove the demotion and the statement submitted by the applicants squadron commander indicating he never intended to demote the applicant; however, the JA and squadron commander recommendations are inputs made available to the discharge authority prior to making her final determination. While the record includes documentation indicating that the local JA believed the action to be harsh given the circumstances, we are not inclined to substitute our judgment for that of the demotion authority who had all the facts and evidence available to her when she rendered a decision within her authority, regardless of the recommendation provided by the local JA. Therefore, absent evidence that there was an abuse of discretionary authority, we are not convinced that corrective action is warranted. Should the applicant provide a supporting statement from the demotion authority in support of his request, we would be willing to reconsider the matter based on new evidence. Thus, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.
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 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-2014-00202 in Executive Session on 11 Dec 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00202 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Jan 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 7 Feb 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01887
The applicants commander initiated an AF Form 3538E, Enlisted Retention Recommendation, and did not recommend he be retained on active duty. The applicants demotion action was initiated due to his DUI with a blood alcohol level of 0.18. As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 02847
In a letter dated 2 June 2015, SAF/MRBR provided the applicant an opportunity to request that her case be administratively closed until such time as her case is resolved through the appropriate IG authority and requested she respond within 30 days (Exhibit G). After considering the applicants appeal, several character statements and the Staff Judge Advocates legal review, the demotion authority approved the demotion action on 24 February 2014. As such, an applicant must first exhaust all...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04268
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of applicants requests to remove the contested EPRs ending 12 Aug 09 and 29 Jun 10. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant reversing his demotion to the grade of SSgt, promoting him to the grade of MSgt with back pay or removing the contested EPRs from his record. Therefore, aside from DPSOEs recommendation to time bar the applicants...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02987
His Article 15 received on 22 Apr 13 be set aside. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE indicates no equity in the decision regarding the removal of the applicants Article 15, indicating AFLOA/JAJM has reviewed the case and found the Article 15 punishment legally sufficient, and recommended denial of the applicants request to have it set aside. Although, the commander was to only examine all the statements and other evidence upon which he would rely...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 01472
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit H. AFLOA/JAJM addresses the applicants nonjudicial punishment (Article 15), and determines the applicants commander did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in making the decision to punish the applicant under Article 15. In addition, while the Board notes the applicant was denied the opportunity to test for promotion during the 10E5 promotion cycle, the fact she did not test also constitutes a harmless error because she was not...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04992
On 9 May 2012, the applicant submitted an additional response to his denial of reenlistment and demotion action because he indicated that he just received the ROI. On 19 September 2012, by authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, his 3 August 2012 request for redress filed under Article 138 was denied as the actions taken by the command were determined to be appropriate to the circumstances. The applicants discharge was correctly administered on the basis of his RE code of 2X (denied...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05718
The commander denied the applicants request not to demote him; the applicant was notified of this action on 25 Jun 12. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C and D. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE does not provide a recommendation. However, they note the applicant was notified by his commander of...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04179
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of his request to have his FA dated 20 Jun 12, removed from AFFMS indicating the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim. The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants request to remove the demotion action and restore his rank to SrA. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 13 Jun 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01988
Any duty that requires him to report his arrest for DUI violates his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. On 10 Oct 12, the applicants commander issued him an LOR for failing to report his arrest to his security officer as required by DoD Regulation 5200.2-R, paragraph C9.1.4. On 11 Mar 13, in response to a request from the applicant, his referral EPR was amended to remove reference to the DUI, however, the EPR remained an overall 3 based upon the applicants failure to...