RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02732
		INDEX CODE:  110.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His rank of staff sergeant (E-5) be restored and he be awarded the Vietnam Campaign Medal.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Based on the nature of the incident, he was told by the hearing officer that his punishment would be no more than a fine.  He was promoted to staff sergeant (E-5) in July 1965.  When he separated from active duty, it was brought to his attention that some special orders had reduced him in rank to A1C (E-4).  He was told it could have been a clerical error and it would take a few days to check into it.  Since he was anxious to be at his sisters' high school graduation, he told them to process him out as an A1C and let him know once the grade issue was cleared up.  When he received his honorable discharge in late 1968, it reflected the rank of sergeant (E-4).  He didn't understand the reason until recently when he applied for a DD Form 215 correction and was told his reduction in grade was due to a disorderly conduct charge and an Article 15.  He was never told that he had been reduced in rank and he never paid a fine.  He served his country with pride and honor and earned his rank of staff sergeant.  

In support of his appeal, applicant submits a personal statement; a copy of his DD Form 214 and special order AB-135 dated 31 July 1965 and copy of his correspondence filed with his Congressional member. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic (E-1) on 31 August 1962.  Records reflect overseas tours in Japan and Turkey.  Prior to the events under review, he was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) on 1 July 1965.  

On 27 May 1966, nonjudicial punishment was offered to the applicant under Article 15, UCMJ for being disorderly in station.  The applicant acknowledged receipt on the same date, waived his right to demand trial by court-martial, and accepted the nonjudicial proceedings.  On 27 May 1966, the commander imposed punishment on the applicant.  The applicant was reduced to the grade of Airman First Class and ordered to forfeit $108.00 of his pay per month for a period of one month.  The applicant elected not to appeal the punishment.

On 6 June 1966, he was honorably released from active duty, having served 3 years and 9 months and 6 days on active duty of which 2 years, 11 months, and 9 days was foreign service.  After having been released from active duty, he was transferred to the Air Force Reserve for completion of his military service obligation, which occurred on 30 August 1968.

On 13 May 2003, during a records review, Headquarters Air Force Personnel Center determined the applicant's eligibility for and entitlement to the Vietnam Service Medal, Air Force Good Conduct Medal and the National Defense Service Medal.  

On 23 July 2003, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request that his rank was SSgt (E-5) rather than A1C (E-4) and credit for an NCO training course (See Exhibit F).

On 4 October 2004, Headquarters Air Force Personnel Center advised the applicant that his service in Vietnam for the period 24 August 1964 to 5 November 1964, did not meet the 6-month qualification time period for the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal (see Exhibit D).  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends the application be denied.  JAJM states that the applicant alleges he never signed the Article 15 paperwork or was notified about the punishment for his disorderly conduct, but provides no evidence other than his statement to support his contention.  The signatures on his DD Form 214 and other documents in his records appear to be identical with the one on the Article 15 notification and punishment imposition indicated he was made aware of his rights and made a conscious choice regarding the Article 15 procedures.  The AFLSA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 8 October 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was sent to the applicant for review and comment.  As of this date, this office has not received a response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  In earlier findings, the Board determined that there was insufficient evidence to warrant restoration of his rank to staff sergeant.  After thoroughly reviewing his most recent submission, we do not find it sufficiently compelling to warrant a revision of the Board’s earlier determination.  Contrary to the applicant’s assertions, his military personnel records clearly show that he was advised of his reduction in grade to airman first class and forfeiture of his pay for one month.  He was offered every right to which he was entitled, he acknowledged receipt and elected not to appeal the Article 15 punishment.  Other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence showing his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.  In regard to the applicant’s request that he be awarded the Vietnam Campaign Medal, we defer to the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility who has adequately addressed this issue and we are in agreement with their recommendation.  In view of the foregoing, we conclude that no basis exists upon which to recommend favorable action.

_________________________________________________________________

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 in Executive Session on 16 November 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02732:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Aug 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 28 Sep 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPRA, dated 4 Oct 04.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 04.
    Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 23 Jul 03.