Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00059-2
Original file (BC-2003-00059-2.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                                 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

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00059

    Original file (BC-2003-00059.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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

    Original file (BC-2010-02970.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC-2003-01339.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC 2013 00018.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2004-01160.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC-2007-03407.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2002-04054A.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ 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

    Original file (BC-2005-03613.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC 2012 05412.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2000-02569.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...