RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02839

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be advanced on the USAF Retired List to the grade of Master Sergeant (MSgt), his highest grade held on active duty.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told that after he had paid for his mistake that years later he would be eligible and could request to get his grade of MSgt back.

It has been 33 years and he has done all that was required of him and was a great asset to the Air Force.

His mistake had nothing to do with the Air Force.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 8 Mar 62, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force.  On 1 Sep 79, he was promoted to the grade of MSgt.

In accordance with General Court Martial Order, No. 1, dated 26 Jan 82, on 28 Oct 81, the applicant was tried and convicted at Andrews AFB MD.  The court-martial was based on one charge of violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  The applicant pled guilty to four specifications; Specifications I and II) he, did at Izmir City, Turkey, commit indecent, lewd and lascivious acts upon two daughters, one under the age of 16, between Jul 79 and May 80, with the intent to gratify his sexual desires; Specifications III and IV), he, did at Andrews AFB, MD, commit indecent, lewd and lascivious acts upon two daughters, one under the age of 16, between Jun 80 and Jun 81, with the intent to gratify his sexual desires.  He was found guilty of the charges and all four specifications.  The applicant was sentenced to confinement with hard labor for two years and reduction in grade to Staff Sergeant (SSgt).  On 30 Nov 81, the court-martial was adjudged.

On 31 Jan 83, the applicant was honorably discharged and, on 1 Feb 83, he was retired in the grade of SSgt.  He was credited with 20 years, 2 months, and 28 days of active service for retirement, including 238 days of lost time for confinement from 8 Jan 82 to 3 Sep 82.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR-RET recommends denial indicating the applicant states that he was informed in 1982 about an opportunity for grade advancement, however, chose to wait over 30 years to take any action.  If the Board chooses to grant relief, the SAFPC would need to accomplish a Satisfactory Service Determination (SSD) to determine what grade the applicant served satisfactorily.  There is nothing reflected in the applicant’s records to determine if SAF/MRB deemed that he deserves advancement.  

In accordance with Title 10, United States Code (USC), §8964, enlisted airmen who were demoted prior to retirement and did not regain the highest grade held on active duty may be advanced on the retired list as determined by the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) or designee.  When an airman requests retirement, the Retirements/Separations Branch prepares a Satisfactory Service Determination (SSD) package and sends it to the SAF or designee, who determines the highest grade held on active duty in which the airman served satisfactorily.  When the airman active service plus their service on the retired list totals 30 years, they are advanced as determined by the SecAF or designee.  

A complete copy of the DPSOR-RET evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) recommends denial.  SAFPC agrees with the comments and recommendation from DPSOR-RET and notes while the applicant is entitled to a review for advancement, because he was demoted due to a punitive action, as a result of a General Court Martial, he did not serve satisfactorily in the grade of MSgt.  

A complete copy of the SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant appreciates the response to his request and provides copies of his record of performance for the Board’s review.  He request the Board read each document carefully and believes that the Board would agree that he deserves his stripes back.  

He has confessed his mistake and has paid the price.  He was granted retirement based on his outstanding record for over 19½ years.  He does not fully understand the quote from 10 USC 8964, highest grade held after 30 years; however, he has been retired for over 33 years and had 20 years of service.  He was a MSgt at his last duty station; however, he is not sure what his retired grade was, as thing happened so fast.  

His two girls have finished college and have lovely families.  His wife is now retired and they are enjoying what life has left them and pray the Board would consider giving him his stripe back.  

In support of his response, the applicant provides copies of documents from his personnel records during his service; letters of commendation and appreciation, and other certificates he has received since his discharge.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:

Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After a careful review of the applicant's contentions, documentation submitted in support of the request, and the available evidence of record, we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude that he is the victim of an error or injustice.  We also note the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603.  Therefore, because we do not find it would be in the interest of justice to recommend granting relief, and the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file the application.  Accordingly, we find the application untimely.  

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.  It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-02839 in Executive Session on 10 May 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-02839 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jun 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR-RET, dated 2 Feb 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 1 Mar 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Mar 16.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Mar 16, w/atchs.