RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03859
		INDEX CODE:  131.02
		COUNSEL:  
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His rank of technical sergeant (E-6) be reinstated. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was unjustly demoted. Despite his excellent career, two female airmen misinterpreted his friendliness, kindness and claimed he acted inappropriately.

In support of his application, applicant provides a legal brief, a statement from his mother, a personal statement, a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and a letter from the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 1 March 1984.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Sep 01.  

On 25 August 2003, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to recommend his demotion to the grade of senior airman (E-4) based on Air Force Instruction 36-2503, Administrative Demotion of Airmen, para 3.3, Failure to Fulfill NCO Responsibilities. The specific reason for this action was his failure to fulfill his noncommissioned officer (NCO) responsibilities including maintenance of exemplary standards of behavior at all times, including personal conduct, both on and off duty.  His commander decided to demote the applicant because he had repeatedly made offensive, insulting, degrading, and disrespectful comments of a sexual nature to two female airmen. The commander noted his repeated willful misconduct, unprofessional behavior, and blatant disregard for the Air Force’s “zero tolerance” policy against sexual harassment as a gross deviation from the conduct that is expected of an NCO. The applicant acknowledged receipt and indicated he did not concur with the proposed demotion. He requested a personal hearing before the commander and to consult with counsel. 

On 26 September 2003, a legal review found the case legally sufficient and recommended approval of his demotion to senior airman. 

On 4 November 2003, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the demotion action to senior airman with an effective date of rank of 30 October 2003. The applicant appealed the demotion and on 14 November 2003, the wing commander reviewed and disapproved his appeal. 

On 17 November 2003, the applicant applied for and was granted a 1 April 2004 retirement date. 

On 8 January 2004, Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) determined the applicant would be retired in the grade of senior airman by virtue of not serving satisfactorily in the higher grade of technical sergeant. However, SAFPC found the applicant did serve satisfactorily in the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) and directed the applicant's advancement to SSgt on the retired list effective 1 March 2014 upon completion of a total of 30 years active service plus service on the retired list. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial and states that SAFPC found that the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in the higher grade of technical sergeant and determined that his advancement under Title 10, Section 8964 would be to the lower grade of staff sergeant. 

AFPC/DPSOR's complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states the demotion was very harsh and unwarranted and it should be corrected. He believes he should have been disciplined but not reduced in grade by two stripes.  The comments were inappropriate; however, it was not sexual harassment. At the present time, it is very difficult to find employment with this false stigma hanging over his head. He has been trying to re-establish his reputation, integrity and rank with the help of his lawyer.  He is requesting that his rank of technical sergeant be restored.

Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or an injustice.  While the applicant may believe his demotion was unfair, it appears there is sufficient documentation indicating the applicant’s unsatisfactory conduct was not commensurate with the behavior expected of an NCO. Furthermore, we noted that the applicant received a referral enlisted performance report based on similar misconduct from a previous assignment.  In view of the foregoing, we conclude that no basis exists to recommend granting the relief sought in this application 

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a 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-2007-03859 in Executive Session on 29 May 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007-03859 was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 27 Oct 07, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/AFPC/DPSOR, dated 3 Mar 08, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Apr 08.
	Exhibit E. Applicant's response, dated 5 May 08.