RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02085 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His administrative demotion to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) be rescinded and his rank of technical sergeant (E-6) be restored with all financial reimbursement back to 2 Nov 09. 3. He receive supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) for all appropriate promotion cycles missed under the Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was administratively demoted based on an off-base incident of driving under the influence (DUI). Since jurisdiction of the case was not obtained from the local authorities, AFI 36-2503, Administrative Demotion of Airmen, was exploited by using the vague terminology in it to justify a demotion. His overall military record and the opportunity to overcome deficiencies before proceeding with demotion actions were not properly taken into account. He was offered blanket statements and a biased legal review as justification, which makes him question how thoroughly his package was reviewed before the action was taken. The section used in the AFI technically covers all non- commissioned officers (NCOs); however, it seems to be only aimed at the middle ranks, with most senior NCOs being eligible to retire and senior/chief master sergeants having to be forwarded to the major command (MAJCOM) level, leaving staff/technical sergeants most susceptible to be adversely affected in the short and long term. His leadership entrusted him after the initial incident by elevating him to the noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC) in one of the busiest work centers in the squadron, a position he held until his demotion. Based on his 13 years of service/experience, and after talking to senior leaders and speaking with area defense counselors (ADCs), this was an uncommon practice to send his package up to wing/group level; these types of cases were normally handled by the squadron commander. Although double jeopardy was technically avoided since his administrative demotion was not considered punishment, it is conceivable to believe had the base been given jurisdiction, a demotion could have been his form of punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Other members of his squadron who received DUIs both before and after he did, did not receive a reduction in rank, even in cases where jurisdiction was turned over to the base. He was punished twice for the same infraction: 1) His reinstatement package was not sent to the group level as the AFI states, and 2) It took 10 months to process the demotion action, making his new date of rank (DOR) after 31 Jul 09, which makes him ineligible for WAPS testing until 2012. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, and various documents related to his administrative demotion. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the Regular Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant. On 1 Oct 09, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend to the group commander that the applicant be demoted to the grade of staff sergeant. The reason for the proposed action was: On 18 Jan 09, the applicant operated a vehicle while drunk. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed demotion action, and after consulting with legal counsel, waived his rights to a personal hearing before the commander. On 13 Oct 09, the applicant submitted a written response and character statements. His ADC also provided a response. The group commander, after considering the entire package and submitted information, concurred with the recommendation for the administrative demotion. On 2 Nov 09, the applicant was demoted from technical sergeant to staff sergeant. On 16 Nov 09, the applicant appealed the demotion action, and his appeal was denied. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states the commander acted within his authority to demote the applicant from TSgt to SSgt, in accordance with AFI 36-2503, paragraph 3.3 (Failure to fulfill NCO responsibilities). The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 1 Jul 11, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ 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 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. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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-2011-02085 in Executive Session on 4 Oct 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 May 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 9 Jun 11. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jul 11.