Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02761
Original file (BC-2003-02761.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02761
            INDEX CODE:  129.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or  Discharge  from  Active
Duty, be corrected to reflect her grade as staff sergeant.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her correct grade at discharge was staff sergeant, but her DD  Form
214 reflects the grade of senior airman.

In support of her appeal, applicant submitted a copy  of  MSG  NBR-
1151-00907D, which indicates that member is entitled to  disability
severance pay computed in the grade of staff sergeant.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 12 Oct 77, applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of four years.   She  reenlisted
on 5 Nov 82 for a period of five years in the  grade  of  sergeant.
She was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant on  1  Feb  85  and
remained in that grade until 29 May 86.

On 27 May 86, she received an Article 15 for failure to go  to  her
appointed place of duty on 21, 22, and 23 May 86.   Her  punishment
consisted of reduction in grade to sergeant and forfeiture of  $100
for one month.  She was given a new date of rank in  the  grade  of
sergeant effective 30 May 86.  Her  Noncommissioned  Officer  (NCO)
status was vacated on 5 Jun 86.

On  2  Oct  86,  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  under   the
provisions of AFR 35-4, in the  grade  of  senior  airman,  with  a
reason for separation of Disability Entitled to Severance Pay.

Based on a grade determination by the Secretary of  the  Air  Force
Personnel Council (SAFPC), it was determined that  she  had  served
satisfactorily in the highest grade held, staff sergeant.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPD reviewed this application and recommended denial.  The
purpose of the military disability evaluation system  (DES)  is  to
maintain a fit and vital force by separating  or  retiring  members
who are unable to perform the duties of their office,  grade,  rank
or rating.  Members who are separated or retired  by  reason  of  a
physical  disability  may  be  eligible  for   certain   disability
compensation.

Disability processing records reveal the applicant underwent both a
medical and physical evaluation board which  ultimately  discharged
her with entitlement to severance pay with a 10 percent  disability
rating.  Since the member had been reduced to the grade  of  senior
airman, her case was forwarded to SAFPC for a grade  determination.
Ultimately, SAFPC determined that she had served satisfactorily  in
the highest grade held, staff sergeant.   The  applicant  was  paid
severance pay at the highest grade.  However,  grade  determination
action does not insinuate the veteran’s rank was  restored  to  the
grade from which she was demoted.  The purpose of the DD  Form  214
is to record personnel data for the period  of  a  member’s  active
duty service.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 19 Dec 03 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

___________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of
the applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the
case.  Applicant asserts that her records should  be  corrected  to
reflect her grade at the  time  of  discharge  as  staff  sergeant.
However, evidence in the record reflects that she had been  reduced
to the rank of senior airman as a result of an  Article  15  action
prior to her discharge.   SAFPC  determined  applicant  had  served
satisfactorily in the grade of staff  sergeant  and  she  was  paid
severance pay at  the  highest  grade.   Therefore,  based  on  the
evidence of record, we  find  no  error  in  this  case  and  after
thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been  submitted  in
support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe she has  been  the
victim of an error or injustice.  In view of the foregoing, and  in
the absence of evidence to the contrary,  we  find  no  basis  upon
which to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s 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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2003-02761 in Executive Session on 21 January  2004,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
      Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
      Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Aug 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 9 Dec 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.




                                   BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                   Panel Chair



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02733

    Original file (BC-2003-02733.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02733 INDEX CODE: 110.02, 108.10 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: N0 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be amended to reflect his active duty grade as staff sergeant (E-5), and his date of separation be changed to reflect the date he was removed from...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02831

    Original file (BC-2012-02831.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: According to a letter he received from the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) dated 23 January 2012, he should have been discharged in the grade of Staff Sergeant instead of Senior Airman. On 23 August 2012, AFPC/DPSOE notified the applicant by letter (Exhibit D) that although SAFPC determined that he served satisfactorily in the grade of Staff Sergeant, it was for disability purposes...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03646

    Original file (BC 2013 03646.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: According to a letter from the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF), she served satisfactorily in the higher grade of staff sergeant (E-5), in accordance with 10 U.S.C. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01236

    Original file (BC-2003-01236.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 26 July 2001, the SAFPC determined the applicant was physically unfit for continued military service due to a physical disability which existed prior to service and directed she be separated without disability benefits. The disability processing records indicate the applicant was treated fairly throughout her DES process and was properly rated under disability laws and policy at the time of her medical discharge. The applicant’s case was processed through the medical...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201660

    Original file (0201660.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Further medical details are provided in the AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation at Exhibit C. On 17 Jan 01, the Hurlburt Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) interviewed the applicant about allegations that he had used marijuana. The medical records corroborate the fact that he was suffering from increased low back pain during the time he used marijuana and he was being treated and evaluated for his pain. The SAFPC considered his entire service performance as well as his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03250

    Original file (BC-2003-03250.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 21 Jun 93, the applicant’s squadron commander notified her that he was considering whether to vacate the suspended punishment imposed on 15 Mar 93 for the alleged offenses of dereliction of duty and failure to obey a lawful general regulation. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s requests. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02398

    Original file (BC-2003-02398.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s medical records indicate she began experiencing headaches during pregnancy but they markedly increased two months following her delivery in Nov 01. The IPEB concluded her headaches were unfitting for continued military services, rated the headaches at 10%, and recommended discharge with severance pay. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04834

    Original file (BC 2013 04834.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPFD states the applicant’s DD Form 214 correctly reflects the grade of SrA which was the active duty grade she was wearing upon her date of separation. ________________________________________________________________ _ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-04834 in Executive Session on 12 June 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Oct 13,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00507

    Original file (BC-2003-00507.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 03-00507 INDEX NUMBER: 145.00 COUNSEL: Veterans of Foreign Wars HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that at the time of separation he received a higher disability rating and if this new disability rating qualifies him for medical retirement, he be medically retired with...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03661

    Original file (BC-2003-03661.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03291 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be set aside and she be given a disability retirement. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The discharge she received was...