RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00202 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His administrative demotion to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C/E-3) be removed from his record and he be restored to his prior rank of Senior Airman (SrA/E-4). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After his Squadron Commander (TRS/CC) chose not to demote him, a demotion action code was erroneously entered into his record. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 23 Feb 10. On 27 Feb 12, the applicant received a Letter or Reprimand (LOR) for allowing a fellow Airman to drive while intoxicated. The LOR was filed in an Unfavorable Information File (UIF). On 12 Mar 12, the applicant’s commander notified him he intended to recommend him for demotion to the grade of E-3 for not fulfilling his junior enlisted Airman’s responsibilities. Specifically, he accompanied another Airman as a passenger in a vehicle after he knew the other Airman had been drinking, therefore failing to adhere to the Wingman concept. On 19 Mar 12, after reviewing the written statement submitted by the applicant and meeting with the applicant in person, the applicant’s commander indicated the action should proceed on the demotion paperwork. On 22 Mar 12, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) recommended the demotion authority disapprove the administrative demotion of the applicant, indicating that said action was disproportionate to the circumstances as other airmen who had committed more egregious acts of misconduct were not demoted. On 30 Mar 12, the demotion authority directed the applicant be administratively demoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3). Under Special Order AA-010, dated 30 Mar 12, the applicant was demoted to the permanent grade of E-3, with an effective date of rank of 30 Mar 12. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Forces office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The TRS/CC is not the demotion authority and therefore does not have the authority to remove the demotion action. Although the TRS/CC provides a statement that he chose not to demote the applicant, the documentation in the applicant’s record reflects his decision/recommendation to demote. On 19 Mar 12, after receiving the applicant’s response to the demotion notification, the TRS/CC made his decision to continue processing the demotion action. A legal review was conducted and although the Staff Judge Advocate did not concur with the demotion action, it was nevertheless found to be legally sufficient. The demotion authority, the Group Commander, agreed with the TRS/CC’s recommendation and directed the applicant be demoted. Should the applicant obtain the demotion authority’s support of his request, an exception to policy request can be submitted through administrative channels to AFPC. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28 Jul 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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 AFPC/DPSOE and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. The Board acknowledges both the recommendation by the Wing Judge Advocate (JA) to disapprove the demotion and the statement submitted by the applicant’s squadron commander indicating he never intended to demote the applicant; however, the JA and squadron commander recommendations are inputs made available to the discharge authority prior to making her final determination. While the record includes documentation indicating that the local JA believed the action to be harsh given the circumstances, we are not inclined to substitute our judgment for that of the demotion authority who had all the facts and evidence available to her when she rendered a decision within her authority, regardless of the recommendation provided by the local JA. Therefore, absent evidence that there was an abuse of discretionary authority, we are not convinced that corrective action is warranted. Should the applicant provide a supporting statement from the demotion authority in support of his request, we would be willing to reconsider the matter based on new evidence. Thus, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00202 in Executive Session on 11 Dec 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00202 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jan 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 7 Feb 14. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 14.