RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02874
INDEX CODE: 129.04
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His retirement grade be changed from staff sergeant (SSgt) to technical
sergeant (TSgt).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and
the evidence submitted in support of the appeal is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the
appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Senior Reserve Advisor, SAF Personnel Council, reviewed the application
and states that normally the burden of proof is on the member to provide
the information required to make the proper decision, but in this case he
should not be penalized for information not in his master records. They
opined he did not meet the meaning of Section 8964, Title 10, USC. There
was no evidence to indicate why he was demoted from the rank of TSgt or
were there performance reports to indicate there was no derogatory
information/administrative actions given to the applicant during the time
he held the rank of TSgt. They recommend that the AFBCMR request
information from the applicant
to verify he served in the grade satisfactorily. If the Air Force Board
for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) determines that the applicant
was demoted voluntarily (without cause) to enter active duty, their advice
would be for the AFBCMR to advance the applicant to the rank of TSgt at the
30-year point.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
The Retirements Ops Section, Directorate of Pers Prog Management,
AFPC/DPPRR, reviewed the application and states that based on the lack of
evidence that the applicant performed either satisfactorily or
nonsatisfactorily in the grade of TSgt (i.e., performance evaluation), it
is very difficult to recommend approval or disapproval. If the board,
after reviewing the application and master personnel records, determines
the applicant served satisfactorily on active duty in the grade of TSgt,
they have no objection to preparing advancement orders to show this
decision.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that upon re-
entering active duty in 1982 the recruiter said there were no E-6 (TSgt)
slots available for aircraft maintenance personnel at that particular time,
but there were E-5 (SSgt) positions open.
Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. The Air Force states that the
applicant did serve on active duty with the Reserves for a period 11½
months in the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt). The Air Force also
states that none of the information that would normally be available and
which would be forwarded to the SAF Personnel Council for consideration in
the
satisfactory grade determination process is available in the applicant’s
master personnel records. The applicant states that upon re-entering
active duty the recruiter said there were no TSgt (E-6) slots available for
aircraft maintenance personnel at that time but there were SSgt (E-5)
positions open. After reviewing the available records and documentation
submitted with this appeal, the Board is of the opinion that the applicant
upon re-entering active duty accepted an E-5 position because of the
unavailability of a TSgt (E-6) position. Therefore, we recommend the
applicant's records be corrected to the extent indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he be advanced on the retired list
to the grade of technical sergeant, effective 7 October 2006.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 16 February 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner (without vote)
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 September 1997, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRR, dated 19 November 1997.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAFPB, dated 13 November 1998.
Exhibit E. Letters, AFBCMR, dated 8 December 1997 and
19 November 1998.
Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, undated.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 97-02874
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he be advanced on the
retired list to the grade of technical sergeant, effective 7 October 2006.
JOE G.
LINEBERGER
Director
Air
Force Review Boards Agency
If the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) determines that the applicant was demoted voluntarily (without cause) to enter active duty, their advice would be for the AFBCMR to advance the applicant to the rank of TSgt at the 30-year point. Exhibit B. CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair AFBCMR 97-02874 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of...
Since the applicant had served on active duty in the higher grade of MSgt from 1 June 1993 through 14 December 1997, an advancement grade determination was required and accomplished at the time of applicant’s request for retirement. A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, also evaluated the case and indicates the demotion action taken against the applicant was procedurally correct and there is no evidence there were...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01265
His administrative demotion and all documents relating to his demotion be removed from his records. The AFPC/JA complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 2 June 2006 for review and comment within 30 days. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 26 May 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03259
Title 10 USC, Section 1407(f)(2)(B), states if an enlisted member was at any time reduced in grade as the result of a court-martial sentence, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative action, unless the member was subsequently promoted to a higher enlisted grade, the computation of retired pay is determined under Title 10 USC, Section 1406, Retired pay base for members who first became members before September 1980: final basic pay. The applicant further contends the demotion was invalid...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-01992
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01992 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His retirement grade be changed to technical sergeant (TSgt). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Mil Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01992 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His retirement grade be changed to technical sergeant (TSgt). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Mil Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the...
They state the provisions for advancement of enlisted members are quite specific and the only date he may be legally advanced at is the date on which he will have completed 30 years active service plus service on the retired list. They state that this law stated in part that a retiree may not receive less retirement pay than he would have received had he retired at any earlier time with least 20 years of service. After reviewing the evidence of record, we believe that the applicant should...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant's responses to the advisory opinion are at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinion D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00643
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force which is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. On 16 Feb 12, the applicant initiated a request for retirement. The demotion action following his second alcohol-related offense was warranted and he...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00643
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force which is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. On 16 Feb 12, the applicant initiated a request for retirement. The demotion action following his second alcohol-related offense was warranted and he...