RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02504
INDEX NUMBER: 131.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
That his retirement grade be changed to staff sergeant (SSgt) (E-5)
vice senior airman (SrA) (E-4).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His retirement grade is wrong as indicated by his retirement orders
and retirement application approval.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered active duty on 27 Jan 81 in the grade of Airman
Basic. He was promoted to the grade of SSgt with a date of rank of 1
Sep 85. In 1997, he was demoted to SrA with an effective date of 14
Nov 97 for failure to keep fit. Applicant became eligible and was
selected for promotion to SSgt during Cycle 99E5 and was scheduled to
assume the grade on 1 Jul 00. On 16 Jun 00, applicant submitted a
voluntary application for retirement requesting a 1 Feb 01 retirement
date. On 26 Jun 00, applicant’s commander notified him that he was
withholding his promotion to SSgt based on his lack of progress in the
weight management program (WMP). The original Special Order that
approved the applicant’s retirement was published before the withhold
action was updated in the personnel system. However, a second special
order was published, rescinding the original, and reflected the
applicant’s retirement grade as SrA. Additionally, on 25 Sep 00, the
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) determined that
the applicant had served satisfactorily in the grade of SSgt and
directed that he be advanced to that grade on the retired list
effective when he has a combined total of 30 years of active and
retired service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s request. When the
applicant was selected for promotion to SSgt after having been
previously demoted, the personnel system was not updated prior to his
retirement orders being published. His DD Form 214 does reflect his
correct grade of SrA.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPRRP recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The only
error discovered was the fact that the withholding of applicant’s
promotion to SSgt by the commander on 26 Jun 00 was not updated in the
system prior to the established effective date of 1 Jul 00. This
error was corrected by Special Order AC-015602, which also announced
SAF/PC’s decision regarding the applicant’s advancement to the higher
grade after he had a combined, active and retired, 30 years of total
service.
The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
10 Oct 03 for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response
has not been received.
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, a majority of the Board agrees with the opinions and
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and
adopts their rationale as the basis for their conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the majority of
the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-
02504 in Executive Session on 19 Nov 03, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny applicant’s request. Ms.
Maust voted to grant the applicant’s request but did not desire to
submit a minority report. The following documentary evidence was
considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Jul 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 25 Aug 03.
Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 2 Oct 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Oct 03.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-03407
There were many inconsistencies with the Weight and Body Fat Measurement Program (WBFMP) measurements taken. On 31 Oct 02, applicant voluntarily retired from the Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant for years of service. DPPRRP states on 18 Dec 01, his request for retirement was denied, although there is no indication in his record that his specific request for retirement in lieu of demotion was forwarded to the SAF as an attachment.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01741
The applicant’s performance reports and numerous awards are provided at Exhibit B. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advises that, based on the applicant’s current and DOR of 9 Apr 03 for airman, the earliest cycle he would be eligible for promotion consideration to SSgt would be 07E5. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 03.
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 | CY2005 | BC-2004-03246
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/JA also recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The applicant opines that since the withholding was a discretionary action, he believes it appropriate to discuss the necessity of the action taken by his commander in light of his exemplary record up to the time the action was taken. He states the discretionary action was not required by the circumstances.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 00-03277 INDEX CODE 126.02 131.09 129.04 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to the grade of E5/staff sergeant (SSgt) and promoted to E6/technical sergeant (TSgt) by setting aside the punishment imposed on him by Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), dated 31 Oct 95,...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03768
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAC evaluated the applicant’s claim that he was assigned outside his career field for four years and should have been retrained. The applicant’s claim he should have been afforded the opportunity to retrain into another career field because he was performing duties outside his primary AFSC for four years is also without merit. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03563
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPWB recommended denial noting the applicant was administratively demoted from TSgt to SrA with a DOR of 15 Jul 03. His commander also served him with a letter of reprimand (LOR), established an unfavorable information file (UIF), and his name was placed on a control roster for this conviction. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03225
We find no evidence of error in this case, and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation provided in support of his appeal, we do not believe he has been the victim of an injustice. The Board notes that in accordance with the decision of the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council, the applicant's grade will be advanced to staff sergeant on the retired list for pay purposes on 10 January 2008. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01337
On 21 Aug 03, the applicant requested a letter stating her diagnosis of insulin resistance and its effects on her weight. At the time the action was taken against her she was undergoing tests for insulin resistance, five years after she told medical personnel she suspected something was wrong because she could not lose weight. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 3 February...