RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03543
		INDEX CODE:  120.04
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect that he was retired in the highest grade held.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served honorably during his 20 years of service.  He admitted to the offense charged in his Article 15 without coercion.  His supervisor during the period wrote him a performance evaluation that he believes is an overall "5" rating.  

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, documentation associated with his Article 15 punishment, documentation associated with his request for Congressional inquiry, and documentation associated with Secretary of the Air Force grade advancement determination.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 27 Oct 80.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Sep 94.  On 10 Feb 99, applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to impose punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ. The specific reason for this action was that he engaged in unprofessional conduct between 1 Feb 98 and 8 Jan 99 by having sexual intercourse with a female staff sergeant, while being her supervisor.  After consulting counsel, applicant elected to waive is right to demand trial by court-martial and made a written and oral presentation to his commander.  On 23 Feb 99, the commander found that he did commit one or more of the offenses alleged and imposed punishment on the applicant.  His punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of staff sergeant with a date of rank of 23 Feb 99.  Applicant did not wish to appeal the punishment.  On 31 Oct 00, applicant was retired for maximum service or time in grade.  He served 20 years and 4 days on active duty.  

On 6 Jul 00, the Secretary of the Air Force, Personnel Council SAF/PC, determined that the applicant served satisfactorily in the higher grade of technical sergeant and directed that he be advanced in that grade, on the retired list, upon completion of the required service (27 October 2010).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRRP recommends denial.  DPPRRP states that he was correctly retired in the grade of staff sergeant, which was the grade he held on the date of his retirement.  The law, which allows for advancement of enlisted members is very specific in its application and intent.  SAF/PC made the determination that he should be advanced to the grade of technical sergeant effective 27 Oct 10.  There are no other provisions of law, which would allow for advancement.  

The DPPRRP 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 5 Dec 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice that would warrant corrective action.  The Board notes that in accordance with the decision of the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council, the applicant's grade will be advanced to technical sergeant on the retired list for pay purposes on 27 October 2010.  We agree with the Air Force office of primary responsibility that his discharge documents properly reflect his grade held at separation and the applicant has not provided evidence of any errors or injustices that occurred in his discharge processing.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-03543 in Executive Session on 8 Jan 04, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Oct 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 21 Nov 03, w/atchs
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Dec 03.