RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00559
		INDEX NUMBER:  133.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be restored to the grade of E-2 with his original date of rank.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was erroneously demoted and never received a formal Article 15.  He is not seeking any back pay or benefits.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 2 May 61 for a term of four years.  On 21 Mar 62, the applicant was convicted by a Summary Court-martial for the offense of failure to obey a lawful order by operating a motor vehicle on base without a valid state operators permit.  The applicant was reduced to the grade of airman basic (E-1).

On 6 May 62, the applicant sustained a severe head injury when he fell from a moving truck while on duty.  The applicant’s injury was determined to be in line of duty and not due to misconduct.  On 22 Oct 62, after treatment and continuing problems, the applicant was hospitalized for consideration by a physical evaluation board (PEB).  On 7 Feb 63, the PEB recommended that the applicant be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL).  Due to the applicant’s impending retirement, a grade determination was done to determine whether he should retire in the grade of E-2 vice E-1.  It was determined that the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in the higher grade.  On 26 Mar 63, the applicant was placed on the TDRL in the grade of airman basic with a 70% disability rating.  On 23 Oct 64, the applicant was removed from the TDRL and permanently retired in the grade of airman basic.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/JA recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The applicant was actually reduced as a result of a summary court-martial action, not administratively as he asserts.  The applicant states that he never received a formal Article 15.  This is correct, but does not reflect an error.  A convening authority has discretion in determining what action to take concerning minor offenses under the UCMJ, and it is wholly within that discretion to determine to proceed with summary court-martial action rather than under Article 15.  They also note that the same reduction in grade that the applicant complains of could have occurred by Article 15.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB defers to the recommendation of AFPC/JA.  The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 25 Apr 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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 opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 Docket Number BC-2003-00559 in Executive Session on 19 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 25 Mar 03.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 1 Apr 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair