RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03813
		INDEX NUMBER: 100.00

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  23 Nov 05

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His former rank of staff sergeant (E-5) be restored.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His former rank should be restored due to the financial hardship the reduction in grade has placed him in.  Due to disciplinary action, he lost his staff sergeant stripe.  However, he remained in the service and retired in the grade of sergeant (E-4).  Due to the financial hardship since the loss of his staff sergeant stripe and filing bankruptcy, he has no choice but to request relief.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Air Force on 26 February 1975.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), with an effective date and date of rank of 1 February 1983.  He entered his last enlistment on 11 February 1993.

On 30 January 1990, applicant was tried by General Court-Martial.  He was charged with violating Article 128 (Assault) of the UCMJ.  Specifically, that on divers occasions from, on or about 1 March 1989 to on or about 17 June 1989, he committed an assault upon a child under the age of 16 years, inflicting grievous bodily harm.  Applicant pled guilty to the charged offense, except the words “yanking or jerking her extremities and/or assault” and the words “and did thereby intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm upon her, to wit: both bones in her left forearm broken, one of these forearm bones being broken on two separate occasions, her left upper arm broken, her right upper arm twisted without fracture, her right leg broken, and her left leg broken.”  He was found guilty of the offense except the words “and or striking.”  He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for seven months, and reduction to the grade of sergeant.  The portion of the sentence as pertained to the bad conduct discharge and confinement in excess of four months was suspended until 20 April 1992.  He was voluntarily retired on 1 June 1995, in the grade of sergeant (E-4), having served 20 years and 1 day of active duty (excludes time lost for 95 days due to confinement from 30 Jan 90 through 3 May 90).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRRP recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that prior to applicant’s retirement, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAF/PC) denied his advancement to the grade of staff sergeant when his active service plus service on the retired list totals 30 years.  Although applicant’s hardcopy Unit Personnel Record Group (UPRG) and microfiche contain no SAF/PC advancement letter, AFPC/DPPRRP feels there is sufficient evidence to show that a SAF/PC decision to deny advancement to the grade of staff sergeant had been made prior to his retirement.  Further, the Military Personnel Data System (MPDS) Retired Enlisted File shows advancement action “B” which means “advancement disapproved by SAF/PC.”  In addition, his retirement order does not address advancement and an effective date, which it would have if the Secretary had determined he should be advanced to the grade of staff sergeant on the retired list.

The AFPC/DPPRRP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21 January 2005 for review and response within 30 days.  However, 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 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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and 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 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-2004-03813 in Executive Session on 23 March 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Dec 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 7 Jan 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jan 05.