ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00059-2
INDEX CODE: 129.04
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be retired in the grade of master sergeant (E-7).
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s appeal was considered and denied by the Board on 23 July
2003. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the
applicant’s case, and, the rationale for the decision by the Board, see
Exhibit H. After the Board decision, the Air Force office of primary
responsibility, SAF/PC, submitted an amended opinion and rationale for
their recommendation to deny the applicant’s request.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
SAF/PC states that in their previous review, they recommended denial of the
applicant’s request because he voluntarily declined to serve the 2-year
Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) required to retire as a master
sergeant. In their advisory, dated 13 July 2004, they changed their
rationale for recommending denial to the brevity of the applicant’s service
as a master sergeant, not his failure to complete the ADSC.
PC states that the statute governing advancement on the retired list does
not indicate how long a member must serve in the higher grade before his or
her service can be considered as sufficiently “satisfactory” to warrant
advancement at the 30-year point. A member must serve in the higher grade
a sufficient time to demonstrate his or her capability and willingness to
perform the duties of the higher grade. In the case of officers, Congress
has determined this period to be six months. The Air Force Board for
Corrections of Military Records (AFBCMR) and the Personnel Council (PC)
have long employed this 6-month criterion as a starting point in evaluating
these cases. Both Boards further consider whether the member’s service was
marred by misconduct, whether his or her service was terminated for cause,
and if the member’s overall service in the higher grade merits advancement.
PC states in the applicant’s case, there is no evidence of misconduct;
however, the brevity of his service as a master sergeant does not provide a
sufficient basis upon which to justify advancement to the higher grade.
The PC revised evaluation is at Exhibit I.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the revised Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 27 July 2004 for review and response within 30 days. As of this date,
this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
In earlier findings, the Board determined that there was insufficient
evidence to warrant correcting the records to allow the applicant to retire
in the grade of master sergeant. After a careful review of the Air Force
Personnel Counsel’s revised opinion for recommending denial and
reconsideration of the applicant’s request, our earlier decision is
affirmed. The record clearly shows the applicant served two months in the
higher grade prior to his demotion based on the approval of his voluntary
retirement. Once again, we find no evidence that would lead us to believe
the applicant’s retirement in the grade of technical sergeant was contrary
to well established and long standing Air Force practice and policy.
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing and absent evidence leading us to
believe the applicant was miscounseled or his decision to retire was
coerced, we again find no basis to act favorably on his request.
_________________________________________________________________
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 this application in Executive
Session on 24 November 2004.
Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member
The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00059-2
was considered:
Exhibit H. Record of Proceedings, dated 20 Feb 04,
with Exhibits.
Exhibit I. Letter, AFPC, dated 13 July 2004.
Exhibit J. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 July 2004.
ROBERT S. BOYD
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00059
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He served in the grade of master sergeant (MSgt) from 1 October 1974 to 3 December 1974; therefore, he should be retired in that grade. The DPPRRP evaluation is at Exhibit D. The SAFPC Legal Advisor concurs with DPPPWB that denial of the applicant’s request is appropriate since he voluntarily refused promotion to MSgt. In response to DPPRRP’s request for review, the SAFPC Legal Advisor states that...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02970
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02970 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to active duty due to his recent supplemental promotion to chief master sergeant (CMSgt). He was selected for promotion to CMSgt by a supplemental board with a promotion effective date of 1 January 2010. While we considered the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01339
Had he not been selected for an assignment, he would have been able to pin-on his promotion and with a service commitment waiver, he would have been able to retire as a master sergeant. Even though there is no indication in the applicant’s records that indicates he was selected for promotion to master sergeant in January 1972, his decision to decline to obtain the required retainability made him ineligible for promotion. While it may be true that subsequent to the time the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00018
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00018 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His active duty service commitment (ADSC) incurred for advanced flying training (AFT) be changed from 1 May 15 to 14 Jan 14. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01160
On 31 Mar 04, the applicant was relieved from active duty and retired, effective 1 Apr 04, in the grade of technical sergeant. On 31 Mar 04, he was relieved from active duty and retired, effective 1 Apr 04, in the grade of master sergeant, rather than technical sergeant. On 31 Mar 04, he was relieved from active duty and retired, effective 1 Apr 04, in the grade of master sergeant, rather than technical sergeant.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03407
JA states the applicant’s retainability was established by AFI 36-2131, upon accession onto active duty under the protections of sanctuary. If between 1 July 1996 to 21 September 1996 he served on active duty, he could retire in a higher grade under 10 U.S.C 8963. Although he did not specifically request retirement in the highest grade held while on active duty; we have been advised that it has been determined that he served satisfactorily in the grade of MSgt and is eligible to retire in...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-04054A
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPWM states by direction of the Air Force Board of Correction for Military Records (AFBCMR) the applicant was supplementally considered for promotion to SMSgt by the 01E8 promotion board. They further state for the applicant to assume the grade of SMSgt with an effective date of 1 September 2001, his record would need to be corrected to reflect he did not retire until 1 September 2003, after...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03613
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03613 INDEX CODE: 113.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 MAY 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) date, incurred due to a Permanent Change-of-Station (PCS), be changed from 29 Jun 06 to 31 May 05. He has not provided sufficient justification or...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05412
The denial letter stated, in part, at no time were you held beyond an approved retirement date due to stop-loss However, PL 111-32, § 310, in addition to covering circumstances extending service beyond an approved retirement date, states or whose eligibility for retirement was suspended pursuant to 10 U.S.C. He is only claiming retroactive stop-loss special pay compensation for the time between 11 September 2001, when the stop-loss rules went into effect, and the 12-month period of...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2000-02569
On 22 Mar 90, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAF/PC) determined that the applicant served satisfactorily in the grade of technical sergeant and that he would be advanced to that grade on the Retired List upon reaching 30 years of total service (17 Nov 00). The Board notes that the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council reviewed the applicant's case and determined that he did serve satisfactorily in the grade of technical sergeant and that he has been advanced to...