RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02087 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Vacate her demotion to the grade of Senior Airman. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The procedures used by her unit for the recommended demotion does not follow the procedure outlined in the regulation. In support of her request the applicant submits a copy of a personal memorandum which includes her counsel’s legal analysis and copies of documents pertaining to the demotion actions. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Air National Guard (ANG) in the grade of E-4, Senior Airman. Her date of rank (DOR) is 14 April 2012. On 24 February 2012, the applicant received notification from the unit wing commander that he was recommending her for demotion to the grade of E-4, Senior Airman. The specific reason for the demotion was; the applicant did on 2 February 2012, knowingly and willfully made a false accusation of unethical behavior against several members of her unit to include her squadron commander. On 24 February 2012, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and her rights to legal counsel and to concur or non-concur with the demotion action. Subsequent to the demotion package being found legally sufficient on 6 April 2012, the applicant was demoted to the grade of Senior Airman, E-4, by special order AQ-49, dated 14 April 2012. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PP recommends denial. A1PS states available documentation does not support the applicant’s request. Their interpretation of the instruction is the unit commander “may” recommend demotion of an enlisted ANG member under his/her command. It does not state the unit commander “must” take this action. They feel the wing commander made the demotion recommendation based on the fact that the squadron commander was one of the unit members of whom the applicant knowingly and willfully made a false accusation of unethical behavior against. A recommendation for demotion made by the squadron commander could have reasonably been seen as a form of reprisal against the applicant. The complete NGB/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C. NGB/A1PS states they concur with the NGB subject matter expert (SME) and therefore, do not recommend relief for the applicant. The demotion package was reviewed and found to be legally sufficient by the state’s ANG staff judge advocate. The complete NGB/A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 17 September 2012 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). To 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 timely filed. 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 offices of primary responsibility and adopt their 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 basis 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 issue(s) 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 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 this application BC-2012-02087 in Executive Session on 23 January 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 5 May 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 27 June 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 2 July 2012. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 September 2012. Panel Chair , Panel Chair , Member , Member