RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02251 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) instead of senior airman (E-4). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) 1 Apr 14, prior to being medically retired on 27 Apr 14. She obtained the proper waiver to be promoted without attending Airman Leadership School and even had a formal promotion ceremony. She was advised by members of the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) would be recorded on her DD Form 214. Her retired pay is calculated at the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) but she is now being advised her DD Form 214 is correct and a new one will not be created. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 20 Oct 09, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force. On 31 Dec 13, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) recommended the applicant for permanent retirement for unfitting conditions which are compensable and ratable. On 12 Feb 14, the applicant was relieved from active duty and permanently disability retired, effective 27 Apr 14, and was credited with four years, six months, and eight days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. AFI 36-2502, Enlisted Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, dated 31 Dec 09, states airmen are ineligible for promotion in a particular cycle if they have been determined by the Secretary of the Air Force to be unfit to perform the duties of their grade because of physical disability. The Promotion Eligibility Status (PES) code “L” in the military personnel data system, effective 12 Feb 14, removed the applicant’s promotion eligibility. However, for retirement and pay purposes, AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and Separation, states members who are retired on or after 23 Sep 96 may be retired in the regular or reserve grade to which they had been selected and would have been promoted had it not been for the physical disability for which they were retired. The DD Form 214 reflects the active duty grade the member held at time of retirement and the retirement order also reflects this rank as “highest grade held on active duty,” which was senior airman (E-4). A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPFD recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant’s DD Form 214 is correct, as published. While the applicant was selected for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) during cycle l3E5, with a sequence number of , which would have incremented on 1 Apr 14, she had not worn [was ineligible for promotion to] the rank of staff sergeant (E-5), prior to date of separation. However, her retirement order , dated 12 Feb 14, reflects the projected higher grade of staff sergeant (E-5) as the retired grade. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant refutes the position of each OPR and contends she was advised differently by employees from each OPR. She believes she is being penalized for a medical condition beyond her control. While undergoing arduous medical treatment and a PEB, she continued to serve honorably, including studying for and being selected for promotion. Not knowing the outcome of her PEB, her unit placed her in a position of higher authority and gave her the responsibilities commensurate with a promotion. Further, she affirms she did wear the rank of staff sergeant prior to her separation, and submitted proof in the form of two certificates of promotion/recognition signed by members of her chain of command. 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, to include her rebuttal response; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. The Board was compelled to note for the record the applicant showed significant perseverance in preparing for her promotion tests and also demonstrated outstanding dedication to duty while contending with her arduous medical condition. While her promotion eligibility was properly suspended in February 2014, it is unfortunate this information was not properly communicated to her, or her chain of command, prior to her promotion increment date. Her grade of staff sergeant (E-5) is properly recognized on her retirement order and for retired pay. The DD Form 214 is correct in this case, as it reflects the highest grade held while on active duty and the retirement order is also correct, in that it properly recognizes the grade she earned, and would have been promoted to, had her medical condition not prohibited her from continuing to serve. 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-2014-02251 in Executive Session on 22 Mar 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-02251 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 May 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 9 Jul 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPFD, dated 23 Oct 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Nov 14. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Nov 14.