RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01435 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that he retired in the grade of chief master sergeant (CMSgt), instead of senior master sergeant (SMSgt). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was demoted to SMSgt through Article 15 punishment after he had an approved retirement date. He was given the impression by his wing commander that his stripe would not be taken during the Article 15 process. The demotion portion of his Article 15 was excessive for this one personal error in judgment. He has accepted full responsibility for his actions and would like to be reinstated to the rank that he worked so hard to achieve. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 19 Sep 88. On 21 Feb 13, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was considering recommending him for punishment under Article 15, Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) for adultery, in violation of Article 134, under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). On 22 Feb 13, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action indicating he had consulted with counsel, waived his right to court-martial, attached a written presentation and did not request a personal appearance. On 26 Feb 13, after considering all the facts and circumstances, the applicant’s commander determined the applicant had committed the alleged misconduct and determined that he should be demoted to the grade of SMSgt and receive a reprimand. On 26 Feb 13, the applicant was demoted by the approval authority to the grade of SMSgt and received a reprimand. He did not appeal the decision and the action was found to be legally sufficient. On 26 Apr 13, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) conducted a grade determination evaluation in conjunction with the applicant’s retirement processing and found the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in the grade of CMSgt and directed that he not be advanced on the retired list at 30 years under the provisions of Section 8964, Title 10, United States Code (USC). On 1 May 13, the applicant was relieved from active duty and retired in the grade of SMSgt, and was credited with 24 years, 7 months, and 12 days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. In accordance with, Title 10, USC §8961(b): Unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some other provision of law, a Regular or Reserve of the Air Force not covered by subsection (a) who retires other than for physical disability retires in the regular or reserve grade that he holds on the date of his retirement. Since the applicant held a higher grade on active duty, a satisfactory service determination (SSD) was conducted by the SAF Personnel Council as outlined in AFI 36-3203, Service Retirements, and Title 10 USC, §8964. The applicant’s retired grade is correct. Additionally, the SSD was submitted and received appropriate consideration. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s request. Though the punishment the applicant received is serious, it is within the normal realm of punishments for senior enlisted members who commit similar offenses. In the past two years, for example, four of five Chief Master Sergeants who committed adultery, whose cases were disposed of via non-judicial punishment, were reduced in rank. The applicant had the opportunity to make his arguments to his commander and the appellate authority as part of the Article 15 process. The commander and the appellate authority were in the best position to hear such factual arguments. Punishment decisions are within the discretion of the commander imposing punishment. The commander should consider the unique facts of each case, the offense committed, and the individual being punished. In this case, the commander exercised his discretion and there is no evidence of an error or injustice that would warrant reversing the commander’s decision. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D. SAF/MRBP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to adjust his retired pay grade and concurs with the AFLOA/JAJM and AFPC/DPSOR advisories to disapprove the applicant’s request. The applicant did not present any new information that showed an error occurred in his previous personnel actions, either with the Article 15 or the denial of advancement on the retired list action. A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 23 Feb 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). 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 opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, 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-2014-01435 in Executive Session on 22 Apr 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01435 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 20 Apr 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 13 Aug 14. Exhibit E. Memorandum, SAF/MRBP, undated. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Feb 15.