RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01435

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect that he retired in the grade 
of chief master sergeant (CMSgt), instead of senior master 
sergeant (SMSgt).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was demoted to SMSgt through Article 15 punishment after he 
had an approved retirement date.  He was given the impression by 
his wing commander that his stripe would not be taken during the 
Article 15 process.  The demotion portion of his Article 15 was 
excessive for this one personal error in judgment.  He has 
accepted full responsibility for his actions and would like to 
be reinstated to the rank that he worked so hard to achieve.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
19 Sep 88.

On 21 Feb 13, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was 
considering recommending him for punishment under Article 15, 
Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) for adultery, in violation of 
Article 134, under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice 
(UCMJ).

On 22 Feb 13, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action 
indicating he had consulted with counsel, waived his right to 
court-martial, attached a written presentation and did not 
request a personal appearance.

On 26 Feb 13, after considering all the facts and circumstances, 
the applicant’s commander determined the applicant had committed 
the alleged misconduct and determined that he should be demoted 
to the grade of SMSgt and receive a reprimand.
On 26 Feb 13, the applicant was demoted by the approval 
authority to the grade of SMSgt and received a reprimand.  He 
did not appeal the decision and the action was found to be 
legally sufficient.

On 26 Apr 13, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council 
(SAFPC) conducted a grade determination evaluation in 
conjunction with the applicant’s retirement processing and found 
the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in the grade of CMSgt 
and directed that he not be advanced on the retired list at 30 
years under the provisions of Section 8964, Title 10, United 
States Code (USC).

On 1 May 13, the applicant was relieved from active duty and 
retired in the grade of SMSgt, and was credited with 24 years, 
7 months, and 12 days of active service.   

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  In accordance with, Title 10, USC 
§8961(b): Unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some 
other provision of law, a Regular or Reserve of the Air Force 
not covered by subsection (a) who retires other than for 
physical disability retires in the regular or reserve grade that 
he holds on the date of his retirement.  Since the applicant 
held a higher grade on active duty, a satisfactory service 
determination (SSD) was conducted by the SAF Personnel Council 
as outlined in AFI 36-3203, Service Retirements, and Title 10 
USC, §8964.  The applicant’s retired grade is correct.  
Additionally, the SSD was submitted and received appropriate 
consideration.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  Though 
the punishment the applicant received is serious, it is within 
the normal realm of punishments for senior enlisted members who 
commit similar offenses.  In the past two years, for example, 
four of five Chief Master Sergeants who committed adultery, 
whose cases were disposed of via non-judicial punishment, were 
reduced in rank.  The applicant had the opportunity to make his 
arguments to his commander and the appellate authority as part 
of the Article 15 process.  The commander and the appellate 
authority were in the best position to hear such factual 
arguments.  Punishment decisions are within the discretion of 
the commander imposing punishment.  The commander should 
consider the unique facts of each case, the offense committed, 
and the individual being punished.  In this case, the commander 
exercised his discretion and there is no evidence of an  error 
or injustice that would warrant reversing the commander’s 
decision.  

A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D.

SAF/MRBP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to adjust 
his retired pay grade and concurs with the AFLOA/JAJM and 
AFPC/DPSOR advisories to disapprove the applicant’s request.  
The applicant did not present any new information that showed an 
error occurred in his previous personnel actions, either with 
the Article 15 or the denial of advancement on the retired list 
action.

A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit E.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 23 Feb 15 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit F).  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 applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
of injustice.  Therefore, 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-2014-01435 in Executive Session on 22 Apr 15, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	

The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-01435 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 20 Apr 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 13 Aug 14.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, SAF/MRBP, undated. 
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Feb 15.