RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02310
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His grade of Master Sergeant (MSgt, E-7) be reinstated.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He honorably served in the Air Force for over 24 years and at
the end of his career he made some bad life choices. The
reduction in grade was too severe of a punishment and he was
used as an example.
In 2009, he relapsed and drank alcohol one night. He did not
report the relapse to Mental Health (MH) and as a result he was
dropped from the outpatient program. He realizes he is an
alcoholic. His commander and first sergeant told him that if he
retired quietly there would be no more punishment. He
reluctantly submitted his retirement papers.
On 19 Nov 09, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for being
over the legal limit. He dropped into a pattern of drinking and
received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for not coming into work.
He did not tell anyone about his depression, anxiety and
suffering.
On 6 Jan 10, he was driving when he dropped his cell phone. He
bent down to grab the phone and drifted across the road and slid
into a parked car. Although he blew a .076 which was under the
legal limit, he was arrested and taken to jail for Driving Under
the Influence (DUI).
He was within days of his retirement. He was not offered an
Article 15 but was offered an administrative demotion. He was
told that his retirement date would be extended and he would be
court-martialed if he did not accept the reduction in grade.
After 24 years, he was being coerced to take a punishment. A
reduction in grade was not appropriate for the off base DUI. It
was too harsh for an under the legal limit DUI.
The Board should consider it in the interest of justice to
consider his untimely application as the punishment did not fit
the crime. He worked very hard to achieve the rank of MSgt, to
include writing the Specialty Knowledge Test (SKT) for his
career field.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 3 Jun 85.
On 11 Feb 10, he was notified by his commander of her intent to
recommend that he be administratively demoted to the grade of
Technical Sergeant (TSgt, E-6) In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-
2503, Administrative Demotion of Airmen, paragraph 3.3 Failure
to fulfill NCO responsibilities. The specific reasons for the
recommendation include an arrest on 14 Nov 09 for DUI with a
Breath Alcohol (BrAC) sample of .129. Further, he failed to
notify his chain of command. On 6 Jan 10, he was again arrested
for DUI with BrAC sample of .076.
According to an undated memorandum, the 3rd Wing Judge Advocate
(3 WG/JA) found the recommendation for the administrative
demotion legally sufficient.
According to a memorandum from the 3rd Medical Squadron Commander
(3 MDSS/CC) dated 17 Feb 10, the applicant was notified the
demotion authority demoted him to the rank of TSgt with an
effective date of 16 Feb 10 based on his failure to fulfill
NCO/SNCO responsibilities.
On 17 Feb 10, the applicant acknowledged the demotion and
indicated he did not intend to apply for retirement in lieu of
demotion.
On 28 Feb 10, he was retired in the grade of TSgt and was
credited with 24 years, 8 months and 28 days of active service.
On 19 Jul 13, the Secretary of the Air Force determined the
applicant served satisfactorily in the higher grade of MSgt
within the meaning of 10 U.S.C. § 8964 and directs his
advancement to the grade on the retired list effective the date
of completion of all required service. Per 10 U.S.C. § 8964,
each retired member who is retired with less than 30 years of
active service is entitled to, when his active service plus his
service on the retired list totals 30 years to be advanced on
the retired list to the highest grade in which he served on
active duty satisfactorily.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. The commander acted within his
authority to demote the applicant to the grade of TSgt IAW AFI
36-2503, Administrative Demotion of Airmen. The demotion action
taken against the applicant was procedurally correct and there
is no evidence there were any irregularities or that the case
was mishandled in any way. A legal review was conducted by the
3 WG/JA and they found the file legally sufficient as the
actions taken were permissible administrative actions taken at
the discretion of the applicants supervisors/commanders.
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). 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 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 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 of 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 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-2014-02310 in Executive Session on 26 Feb 15 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-
02310 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, 9 Jul 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Sep 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 04134
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In further support of his request the applicant provides a copy of a court report reflecting the charges against him were withdrawn. Therefore, in the interest of equity and justice, we recommend the applicants records be corrected to show that he was advanced to the grade of MSgt on the United States Air Force Retired List by reason of...
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 | 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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 02570
After considering the applicant's appeal and the Staff Judge Advocate's (SJA) legal review, the demotion authority approved the demotion action from MSgt to TSgt effective 20 Nov 13. The applicant's fitness records were not present in the Air Force Fitness Management System and were not provided by the applicant as evidence. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant notes that her case is based on failure to remain fit in a 24...
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 00197
The applicant has not provided documentation from his unit commander or primary care manager for invalidating the FA, nor did he provide the specific FA failure. The applicant held the grade of SSgt on the date of his retirement; therefore, his record correctly reflects his retired grade as SSgt. On 11 Dec 13, the Secretary of the Air Force found the applicant served satisfactorily in the grade of TSgt and ordered his advancement to the grade of TSgt when his time on active duty and his...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00643
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force which is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. On 16 Feb 12, the applicant initiated a request for retirement. The demotion action following his second alcohol-related offense was warranted and he...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00643
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force which is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. On 16 Feb 12, the applicant initiated a request for retirement. The demotion action following his second alcohol-related offense was warranted and he...