RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02279
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His retired pay multiplier be changed from 60% to 65%.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He reenlisted for a period of six years with the intent to retire upon
completion of 26 years of service. However, his High Year of Tenure (HYT)
was later changed from a maximum of 26 years of service to a maximum of 24
years of service, and he was forced to separate upon completion of 24 years
of service. As such, he should receive two years active duty credit and
his retired pay multiplier should be changed from 60% to 65%.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 16 October 1987, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force for a
period of six years, which established his Date of Separation (DOS) as 15
October 1993.
On 11 May 1990, the Air Force changed enlisted HYT. Based on the
applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) of 18
October 1967, his HYT was established as October 1991 (24 years of
service).
On 15 April 1991, the applicant applied for voluntary retirement effective
1 November 1991.
Effective 31 October 1991, the applicant was relieved from active duty and
retired effective 1 November 1991 in the grade of master sergeant (E-7),
with 24 years and 13 days of active service for retirement.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRRP recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that
while the applicant was impacted monetarily by his mandatory separation
date and subsequent retirement, he was treated no differently than the
other master sergeants that were affected by the change in the High Year of
Tenure (HYT) program (i.e., 24 years, rather than 26 years). The HYT
implementation message specifically states that erroneous reenlistment will
not permit airmen to remain on active duty beyond their HYT.
The AFPC/DPPRRP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 30
August 2002 for review and comment within 30 days. 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence
of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief
should be granted. Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do
not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to
override the rationale provided by the Air Force. The office of primary
responsibility has adequately addressed applicant’s contentions and we
agree with their opinion and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he
has suffered either an error or an injustice. Hence, we find no compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of 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 Docket Number 02-02279 in
Executive Session on 12 November 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Jul 02, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 20 Aug 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Aug 02.
PEGGY E. GORDON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01075
AFI 36-2606 states that the appeal authority for individuals like the applicant with more than 20 years of service would be his group commander. Based on HQ AFPC/DPPRRP’s advisory (Exhibit E), the group commander’s Military Personnel Flight (MPF) contacted the HQ AFPC retirements section to advise that the group commander was going to complete the AF Form 418. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advises the applicant was...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01177
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSFOC recommended approval noting the applicant requested an extension of his HYT in Nov 03, but was disapproved by AFPC/DPPRR on 4 Feb 04. AFPC/DPSFOC indicated that since his second request was disapproved on 11 Mar 04 and his retirement date was 1 Apr 04, this only left the applicant enough time to out-process the Air Force prior to his retirement. They believe the applicant’s retirement date...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03136
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03136 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the rank of master sergeant (MSgt) (E-7) effective 1 Sep 93 or later, but not later than 1999, with back pay. The applicant states that he wants two years pay as a CMSgt. The applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03136
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03136 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the rank of master sergeant (MSgt) (E-7) effective 1 Sep 93 or later, but not later than 1999, with back pay. The applicant states that he wants two years pay as a CMSgt. The applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03857
The applicant married and had an eligible child when he retired from military service on 1 November 2004, but he did not complete the documents necessary to properly establish his retired pay account (including an SBP election) until after his retirement date. DPFF states AFI 36-3003, Military Leave Program, note below para 10.9.7 states, in part, a member’s application must clearly establish that an error or injustice by the Air Force caused the member’s lost leave. DPPRRP notes upon his...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01527
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01527 INDEX NUMBER: 108.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) be resubmitted with it noted that he had been restored to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) at the time of the board. He did not appeal the decision of the MEB because of...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00344
However, the Board decided to grant the applicant a measure of relief based on clemency and promoted him to the grade of senior airman with a DOR of 1 Oct 03, which allowed him an opportunity to test for promotion to the grade of SSgt and allow him to retire in that grade. They further note that HYT extensions are designed to address specific problems and issues, not to allow a member the opportunity to test for the next higher grade, which they believe the applicant’s request is based on. ...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 23 July 1975. A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that there seems to be some misconception on what he is asking for from the Board. As the record...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02816
The medical group failed to process a medical evaluation board (MEB) after placing him on a “4T” profile. His request was only received after his retirement date. AFPC/DPAMM confirmed with the applicant’s physician that the reason for the applicant’s elective surgery did not meet the requirement for approval within six months of retirement.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02279
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. Based on the applicant’s length of service, his retired pay was calculated at 2.5% times 20 years resulting in retired pay of 50% of his final basic pay. 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 the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the...