ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET  NUMBER:  90-01947 
COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

The applicant's  requests are not clearly stated. 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
EXAMINER'S  NOTE: 
It appears he believes he is entitled to the following relief. 
He  receive  financial  compensation  for  the  many  errors  and 
inequities present in his case, the monies due him as a result of 
the previous  correction to his  records be  recomputed, and, he be 
credited  with  additional  service  based  on  his  inactive  Reserve 
service for the purposes of his retired pay computation. 

RESUME OF THE CASE: 
The  applicant  is  a  former member  of  the  Regular  Air  Force.  He 
entered his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 31 July 
1972 in the grade of airman first class  (E-3).  He had 3 years of 
prior service with  the Regular Army, which was terminated with an 
honorable discharge on 30 July 1972  in the grade of  Specialist  Sth 
Class  (E-5).  Following his  enlistment  in the Regular Air  Force, 
the applicant continued to enlist and  serve until  31 August  1990, 
when he was voluntarily relieved from active duty in the grade of 
master  sergeant and  retired per  his  request on 1 September  1990. 
He  was  credited with  21  years, 1 month  and  1 day  of  active duty 
service. 
On 26 June 1990,  the applicant  submitted a request under AFR  31-3 
requesting that his records be corrected to show that his grade at 
enlistment  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  was  staff  sergeant  (E-5) , 
rather than airman first class  (E-3), that he  receive any and all 
supplemental considerations due  as a  result  of  the  change to his 
enlistment  grade,  and  he  be  awarded  all  backpay,  BAQ,  BAS,  the 
difference in TDY pay, refunds for his overweight household goods 
shipments,  and  all  other  pay  considerations.  His  request  was 
considered by  the Board on 28  February 1991.  After reviewing all 
the  evidence,  the  Board  recommended  his  records be  corrected  to 
show he enlisted in the Regular Air Force grade of staff sergeant, 
that he was promoted to technical sergeant and master sergeant when 
first eligible  (1 August  1974 vice 1 March  1982  and  1 August  1977 
vice  1 March  1986,  respectively),  he  be  provided  supplemental 
consideration for promotion to the grade of  senior master sergeant 

. 

. 

and  chief  master  sergeant  by  all  appropriate  cycles,  and,  if 
selected  for  promotion  to  a  higher  grade  by  the  supplemental 
process, that his records be  corrected to show that he retired in 
the higher grade.  The Board's  recommendations were accepted and a 
Memorandum for the Chief of Staff directing implementation of those 
recommendations was issued on 1 April  1991.  For an accounting of 
the relevant  facts of  the applicant's  service and of  the Board's 
previous  consideration  of  his  application,  see  AFBCMR  90-01947, 
with Exhibits A through E. 
As  a  result  of  the  final decision  in this case, the appropriate 
office at DFAS computed the monies due and  issued a check to the 
applicant on 5 September 1991.  On 27 August 1992, in responding to 
a query by the applicant, DFAS indicated, in pertinent part, that 
(1) the correction to the record had no impact on his retired pay, 
(2) there is no difference in TDY pay because entitlement is based 
on  location and  not  grade  and  relocation  allowance  is  a  travel 
entitlement  based  on  mileage  and  not  grade,  ( 3 )   there  was  no 
provision  of  law  authorizing  the  payment  of  interest  on  amounts 
found  due  based  on  correction  of  military  records,  and  (4) the 
computation and check issued on 5 September 1991 were correct. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
The Air  Force  was  aware  of  the  discrepancy  in his  records  since 
1974 yet did nothing until he stumbled upon the proper information. 
When he sought justice from the Board in these matters, he believes 
that  the Board only tried to protect  and  cover the Air  Force and 
did not care what happened to him and his family. 
He applied for appointment as an Army Warrant Officer  (WO) in 1983. 
The  Air  Force  granted  him  permission  knowing  that  a  DoD  policy 
existed that would not  allow a member of one service organization 
to transfer laterally to another.  He thought that when he received 
permission from the Air Force, he would also receive their support; 
he did not.  When he was accepted for entry into training for this 
Army  program,  he  requested  separation  from  the  Air  Force  and 
cancellation of his overseas assignment.  He was told that because 
of  the needs of the Air Force, he would not be  available to enter 
the Army program until  1 July 1985.  He raised this issue in his 
original application and his complaint was dismissed.  He believes 
that if he had been a master sergeant when he was accepted for WO 
School, he would have been appointed a WO-1 or WO-2. 
As a result of the Board's consideration of his appeal, he received 
promotions  to  technical  sergeant  and  master  sergeant  when  first 
eligible and that is all.  But, he went from airman first c l a s s   to 
master  sergeant, making  four pay  grades.  If he  had  been  a staff 
sergeant at enlistment, adding four pay grades would have made him 
a  chief  master  sergeant. 
The  procedures  used  to  give  him 
supplemental consideration for promotion to senior master  sergeant 
were wrong  because of  all  the  things that  transpired.  The  error 

2 

AFBCMR  9 0 - 0 1 9 4 7  

committed  and  covered-up  by  the  Air  Force  since  1972  cost  him 
school  and  promotion  opportunities.  The Air  Force  can  keep  the 
rank but he believes he should be financially compensated. 
He believes he should be entitled to a much greater settlement than 
that offered by DFAS. 
Furthermore, he has previously pointed out 
that he had been paid all throughout his career for the 1% years he 
had between services and should still be entitled to that same pay 
consideration.  This was stopped when he retired in September 1990. 
The foregoing contentions, extracted from the applicant's  statement 
to a member of Congress, and the additional documents submitted in 
support of the appeal, are at Exhibit F. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Pursuant  to  the  Board's  request,  the  Airman  Promotion  Branch, 
AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed  the  applicant's  submission and  recommended 
denial of  further promotion in this case.  DPPPWB stated that the 
applicant  was  provided  supplemental  promotion  consideration  for 
cycles 8268  through 8888 using his test  score. from cycle 9 0 S 8   and 
his board score from cycle 89S8 since they were his highest scores. 
He  was  not  selected  for  promotion. 
DPPPWB  stated  that  the 
applicant was  properly  considered  for promotion  to  senior master 
sergeant for the cycles indicated.  Consequently, they are of  the 
opinion  that  there  is  no  valid  reason  to  reconsider  him  for 
promotion for these cycles (Exhibit G ) .  
The  Programs  and  Procedures  Branch,  AFPC/DPPRP,  reviewed  the 
portion of the appeal pertaining to service credit and recommended 
denial.  DPPRP believes  that  the  applicant  is  confusing what  his 
Reserve  service  may  be  used  for.  He  received  credit  for  his 
Reserve  service  for  calculation  of  his  monthly  active  duty  base 
Pay 
This  same  base  pay  (which  includes  credit  for  Reserve 
service) was used  throughout his  active duty career and  is  still 
being used in his base pay for retirement pay calculation. 
DPPRP  indicated that  when  the  applicant  retired, the retired pay 
percentage multiplier was determined by multiplying the applicant's 
total "active" military service by 2.5%.  In the applicant's case, 
he  had  21  years,  1 month  and  1 day  of  active  military  service. 
Thus, his percentage multiplier because 52.71%.  He was entitled to 
52.71% of his monthly active duty base pay  (which includes credit 
for his Reserve service) as his monthly retired pay. 
It appears to DPPRP that the applicant believes the Reserve service 
should have been added to his active service  (rather than his base 
pay rate) to determine the retired pay percentage multiplier.  When 
the  applicant  retired,  there  were  no  provisions  in  law  to  use 
Reserve service to determine the retired pay percentage multiplier. 

3 

AFBCMR 90-01947 

DPPRP  stated  that  the  applicant's  service  time/dates  have  been 
verified  and  that  verification  indicates  that  the  applicant  was 
given credit for his Reserve service for active duty pay purpose as 
evidenced  by  his  Service  for  Pay date  of  5  February  1968.  His 
total  active  military  service  date  (used  to  determine  the 
retirement pay percentage multiplier) is listed as  1 August  1969. 
He did not  and  should not get  credit  for Reserve  service towards 
his  total  active  military  service  and  retired  pay  percentage 
multiplier. 
This evaluation is at Exhibit H. 
The  Staff  Judge  Advocate,  AFPC/JA,  reviewed  the  applicant's 
submission  and  opined  that  it  does  not  meet  the  criteria  for 
reconsideration of his case.  JA indicated that while many of the 
documents submitted are new, none of the documents could reasonably 
be  considered  "newly  discoverable"  or  "not  available"  when  the 
petition  was  originally  considered. 
Furthermore,  many  of  the 
documents have no relevance to any of the errors or wrongs alleged 
by the applicant. 
After  summarizing  the  applicant's  military  record,  the  Board's 
consideration of his application, and the complaints in his latest 
submission, JA indicated that  in their opinion, he  has  failed to 
identify any error in his military  records.  Furthermore, JA does 
not believe he has proven any error in the Board's  earlier handling 
of his case.  N o r   do they believe he is entitled to additional pay 
for pain and suffering or interest on back pay or that his retired 
pay was improperly computed. 
JA stated that  the Board's  original analysis of  the alleged error 
in the military  record relating to his  application to enter Army 
Ordinance  Warrant  Officer  Training  was  correct.  The  applicant 
alleged  error  with  respect  to  the  Army's  handling  of  his 
application.  Those  errors  are  outside  the  jurisdiction of  the 
Board.  The applicant has alleged that  the Air Force thwarted his 
attempt to enter Army warrant officer training.  It is difficult to 
deduce exactly what the error in the applicant's Air Force records 
is supposed to be, or what the Air Force did to create this error. 
JA's  best guess is that the applicant's real concern is-that he did 
not become  an Army warrant officer due to the actions of  the Air 
Force.  Such a complaint, however, is outside the jurisdiction of 
the Board.  If the applicant could provide evidence showing that he 
did not  become a warrant  officer through some error  (although his 
submissions do not prove this assertion), correction of  that error 
would  require action by  the Army Board  for Correction of Military 
Records.  Most  importantly, JA does not believe that the applicant 
has  proven  that  the  Air  Force  improperly  prevented  him  from 
becoming  a warrant  officer.  Every  document  submitted  shows  that 
the Air  Force  supported  the  applicant's  attempt  to  enter  warrant 
officer  training. 
It  is  true  that  the  Air  Force  moved  the 
applicant to Germany while his application was pending, but  there 
is  no  evidence  to  support  his  assertion  that  the  Air  Force 
prevented him from attending Army warrant officer training. 

4 

AFBCMR  9 0 - 0 1 9 4 7  

Even if the applicant had proven an error in his Air Force records 
with respect to the foregoing matter, JA stated that he would have 
no  remedy  - -   first,  because  he  never  completed  the  required 
training; second, because the Board is without authority to appoint 
him  to  a warrant officer position in the United  States Army; and 
third, because the United States Air Force had no warrant officers 
at the time the applicant applied for the Army program - -   the last 
active duty Air Force warrant officer retired on 1 August 1980, and 
the last Air Force warrant officer was appointed in the late 50s. 
JA  believes  that  no  error  occurred  in  the  handling  of  the 
applicant's  application and  the  action  taken  by  the  Board.  JA 
opined that the Board's  decision to waive the untimely filing and 
grant  the  requested  relief  was,  in  fact,  generous  given  the 
applicant's  failure  to  apply  in  a  timely  manner  aggravated  the 
original error by the Air Force. 
As  to  the applicant's  requests for monetary payment  for-  pain  and 
suffering  and  for  interest  on  his  back  pay,  JA  stated  that  the 
Board  correctly  denied  this  request  in  the  original  application. 
The rule in payment of damages is that the applicant is entitled to 
any pay  and  allowances that  flow directly  from the correction of 
his records; however, 'in  no case will the amount found due exceed 
the amount which would otherwise have been paid  or become due had 
no  error  or  injustice  occurred"  (32 C.F.R.  Section  865.25(a)). 
Moreover, JA believes payment of interest or pain and suffering in 
this case would be unconscionable even if it were authorized.  The 
applicant delayed  18 years from his discovery of the error before 
applying to the Board.  Any interest or pain and suffering in this 
case is not  derived from error on the part  of  the Air  Force, but 
rather by lack of due diligence on the part of the applicant. 
JA  concurred  with  the  DPPRP  advisory  opinion  concerning  the 
applicant's  allegations that his retired pay should be computed to 
include his inactive Reserve service. 
Based on the above, JA does not believe the applicant's submission 
meets  the  regulatory  standard  for reconsideration.  Moreover, on 
the merits, they can discern no error either in the applicant's Air 
Force  Records  or  in  the  actions  previously  taken  by  the  Board 
(Exhibit I). 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  applicant  reviewed  the  additional  advisory  opinions  and 
provided the following observations. 

JA's  statements do not  agree with the  information he  was provided 
by  the  Enlistment  Branch  at  AFPC.  He  was  told  the  Air  Force 
Recruiters  implemented  new  procedures  early  and  caused  his 
predicament.  Once  again, one  office within  the Air  Force  cannot 

5 

AFBCMR 90-01947 

. 

. 

agree  with  another.  He  identified  the  problem  in  1972  but  was 
repeatedly told he was wrong and no one offered any assistance to 
He  sought  Congressional  assistance  in  1973  and  his 
him. 
congressman  was  told  everything  was  correctly  done. 
When  he 
contacted  AFPC  prior  to  his  retirement,  it  was  the  first  time 
anyone admitted an error had transpired.  Via  the documentation he 
was provided the Air Force did not recognize the error until 1974. 
The  Air  Force  said  it  made  waiver  procedures  available  to  those 
that were affected but he was never notified. 

He does not believe that a person  in his position  should have to 
request a waiver to rectify an error.  The Air Force had computer 
records in 1972 and could have corrected the error but elected not 
to do so.  This, in his view, is a travesty. 
He  reiterated his  assertions concerning the  timely  filing of  his 
application, his  application  for enrollment  in Army  WO  training, 
and his service computation. 
He  does  not  believe  the  supplemental  considerations  he  received 
were appropriate.  He was denied schooling and placed  in an undue 
stressful situation as a result of  the recruiting error.  He had 
received an Article 15 punishment while assigned to Germany due to 
an  error  in  judgment  and  knew  his  promotion  opportunities  had 
ceased.  He did not study because he knew there was no reason to do 
so because he would  not  receive any  further promotions.  The Air 
Force  asserted  promotion  to  the  two  highest  grades  is  extremely 
competitive.  But,  they  destroyed his  competitive edge.  He  was 
robbed of  schooling or its availability because of  his rank.  He 
knows  that  if  he  his  Air  Force  enlistment  had  been  handled 
properly, he would have been promoted to the two highest grades and 
would have received a direct appointment to WO  status and received 
promotions all the way to the top.  There  is no doubt  in h i s   m i n d .  
As  a  result  of  an Air  Force  error, he  was  screwed  for over  18% 
years. 
The applicant's complete review is at Exhibit K. 

it was directed that his enlistment grade be changed, 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1.  As  a  result  of  the  earlier  consideration  of  the  applicant's 
requests, 
he 
be promoted to the grades of technical sergeant and master sergeant 
when first eligible, and he be provided  supplemental consideration 
for  senior master  sergeant  all  the  appropriate  cycles using  his 
best  board  score and his best  test  score from  cycles when he  had 
previously  been  considered. 
It  was  further  directed  that  the 
applicant receive supplemental consideration for promotion to chief 
master sergeant and retirement in any higher grade for which he may 
have  been  selected  via  the  supplemental process,  if  appropriate. 
After reviewing all the information provided, we are of the opinion 
that the applicant was afforded proper and fitting relief based on 

6 

AFBCMR 90-01947 

the error or injustice when his case was initially considered and 
that no further relief is warranted. 
2.  The  applicant  believes  that, because  of  the  injustice  which 
occurred when  he was not  made  aware until  recently that  a waiver 
provision f o r   his enlistment grade existed in 1972,  he is entitled 
to  extraordinary  relief  in the  form of  an  unspecified  amount  of 
monetary  compensation.  We  disagree.  The  law  under  which  this 
Board operates authorizes the payment of monies due as a result of 
a correction of the record to rectify an error and/or an injustice. 
Other than the previously approved corrections to the record, aside 
from direct promotions by this Board to the grades of senior master 
sergeant to chief master  sergeant, the applicant has not  stated a 
request  for relief  upon which we  may  properly  act.  And, we  are 
unpersuaded by  the evidence provided  that action by  this Board  to 
promote  the  applicant  to  senior  and  chief  master  sergeant  is 
warranted.  It is our opinion that he was granted the appropriate 
relief when he received supplemental consideration for promotion to 
senior master  sergeant using his best  scores  from the E-8 cycles 
during  which  he  had  already  tested  and  been  considered.  The 
applicant  contends  his  promotion  considerations  were  unfair 
because,  throughout  his  Air  Force  career,  he  was  deprived  of 
training opportunities due to his rank.  He also contends that his 
inattentiveness  to  his  studies  was  the  fault  of  the  stress  he 
experienced  due  to  the  recruiting  error which  occurred  in  1972. 
with respect to the applicant’s asserted long-standing distress, we 
believe  it  should be  noted  that, according to his  statements, he 
was unaware that an error existed until 1992.  Notwithstanding this 
observation, the  applicant  has  provided  no  evidence  that  he  was 
improperly  denied  training  for  which  he  was  qualified. 
Furthermore, it would appear to us that the decisions to not enter 
Army  Warrant  Officer  training  and  to  expend  a  limited  amount  of 
effort  studying  for  testing  were  personal  choices  made  by  the 
applicant, not decisions made for him by the Air Force.  In view of 
the  above  and  in  the  absence  of  any  evidence  by  the  applicant 
showing  his  records were  improperly  constituted  at  the  time  the 
previously-directed supplemental considerations were  accomplished, 
we  have no basis  to recommend his promotion to and  retirement  in 
any higher grade. 
3.  As  to  the  applicant’s assertions concerning  his  retired pay, 
other than his own assertions, he has provided no evidence showing 
that,  at  the  time  of  his  retirement,  his  service  credit  f o r  
determining his entitlement to retired pay was computed in a manner 
contrary to the law. 
4.  Accordingly, we agree with the opinions of  the appropriate Air 
Force  offices  of  primary  responsibility  and  conclude  t h a t   the 
applicant’s requests f o r   further relief should be denied. 

7 

AFBCMR 9 0 - 0 1 9 4 7  

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 
The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate the existence of probable 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 in 
Executive  Session on  11 March  1998,  under  the  provisions  of  AFI 
36-2603 : 

Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Panel Chair 
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member 
Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member 

The following additional documentary evidence was considered: 
Exhibit F.  Applicant's Letter, dated 15 August 1996, with 
Exhibit G. 
Exhibit H.  Letter AFPC/DPPRP, dated 9 December 1996, with 
Exhibit I.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 7 February 1997. 
Exhibit J.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 17 February 1997. 
Exhibit K.  Applicant's Letter, dated 28 March 1997. 

attachments. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 27 November 1996, with 
attachment. 
attachment. 

Panel Chair Isk 
PATRICIA J. z  ODKIEWI~Z 

8 

AFBCMR 9 0 - 0 1 9 4 7