RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03425
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
By amendment, his effective date of advancement to the grade of master
sergeant on the retired list be changed to his original date of
advancement to the grade of master sergeant.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Upon his retirement, he was advised by his squadron commander to apply
for a change to the effective date of his promotion to the grade of
master sergeant from 31 May 02 to his current effective date of
retirement of 31 May 92.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of his retiree
account statement.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant initially enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 6 Oct 70 for
a period of four years.
On 14 Jan 92, he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 for
operating a passenger vehicle while drunk. He was reduced in grade
from master sergeant to technical sergeant and ordered to forfeit $850
per month for two months.
On 14 Jan 92, the applicant submitted an application for voluntary
retirement requesting an effective date of 1 Jun 92. On 16 Jan 92, he
submitted an application to change the requested retirement date from
1 Jun 92 to 1 May 92.
On 24 Jan 92, the portion of the nonjudicial punishment which called
for forfeitures in excess of $425 per month for two months was set
aside.
On 20 Feb 92, the Secretary of the Air Force found that the applicant
served satisfactorily in the higher grade of master sergeant within
the meaning of Section 8964, Title 10, United States Code (USC), and
directed his advancement to that grade on the retired list the date of
completion of all required service.
On 30 Apr 92, the applicant was relieved from active duty and retired,
effective 1 May 92, in the grade of technical sergeant, with 21 years,
6 months, and 25 days of active service.
Effective 6 Oct 00, the applicant was advanced to the grade of master
sergeant on the retired list by reason of completing 30 years service
on 5 Oct 00.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRRP recommended denial indicating that the law which allows
for advancement of enlisted members of the Air Force, when their
active service plus service on the retired list total 30 years, is
very specific in its application and intent. On 20 Feb 92, a
determination was made that the applicant did serve satisfactorily on
active duty in the higher grade of master sergeant within the meaning
of Section 8964, Title 10, USC. The applicant’s Total Active Military
Service Date (TAFMSD) was 6 Oct 70. He completed all required service
on 5 Oct 00 and was advanced to the grade of master sergeant on 6 Oct
00. In AFPC/DPPRRP’s view, all criteria of the pertinent laws have
been met in this regard and no error or injustice occurred in the
applicant’s retirement, grade determination, or advancement action.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRRP evaluation, with attachments, is at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response
indicating his initial request was in error and that his current grade
of advancement to the grade of master sergeant should be changed to
his original date of advancement to master sergeant, which was 1 Sep
90.
Applicant’s complete response is at 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. The applicant's complete
submission was thoroughly reviewed, and his contentions were duly
noted. However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and the
documentation presented in support of his appeal sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office
of primary responsibility. Therefore, in the absence of evidence that
the applicant’s effective date of advancement to the grade of master
sergeant on the retired list was erroneous, we adopt the Air Force
rationale and conclude that no basis exists to recommend granting the
relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
2003-03425 in Executive Session on 10 Feb 04, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member
Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Sep 03, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 25 Nov 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Dec 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, applicant, dated 15 Dec 03.
ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03970
On 22 Dec 82, he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 for financial irresponsibility and was reduced in grade from staff sergeant to sergeant. In their view, the Tower Amendment was not applicable to the applicant because he was reduced in grade prior to completion of 20 years of active service. In order for the applicant to have been eligible for retirement pay recalculation under the Tower Amendment, he would have needed 20 years of active service at the time he held the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00307 INDEX CODE: 131.09 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His retirement pay grade be changed from E-6 to E-7. On 27 Oct 97, after considering the matters presented by the applicant, the commander found that the applicant had committed one or more of the offenses alleged and imposed...
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.
On 1 Feb 89, the applicant retired under the provisions of AFR 35-7 (Voluntary-Retirement For Years of Service Established By Law) with an honorable characterization of service in the grade of staff sergeant. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Special Programs Section, AFPC/DPPRRP, reviewed this application and indicated that Section 8961, Title 10, USC, states, “Unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some other provision of law, a Regular or Reserve of the Air Force....who retires other...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01884
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. On 11 June 1991, his commander determined that he committed the offense alleged and imposed punishment consisting of a reduction in grade to technical sergeant (E6). Likewise, the commander was given the responsibility to determine an appropriate punishment if he determined the applicant had committed the offense.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04005
On 17 Oct 03, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAF/PC) considered the applicant's case and determined that he did not serve satisfactorily in the grade of master sergeant and did not warrant advancement on the Retired list. 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 the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03543
On 6 Jul 00, the Secretary of the Air Force, Personnel Council SAF/PC, determined that the applicant served satisfactorily in the higher grade of technical sergeant and directed that he be advanced in that grade, on the retired list, upon completion of the required service (27 October 2010). SAF/PC made the determination that he should be advanced to the grade of technical sergeant effective 27 Oct 10. The Board notes that in accordance with the decision of the Secretary of the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2003-03941
In addition, they found the following; 1) no convening authority may apply the conditions on suspension to the confinement element of the adjudged sentence; 2) the period of suspension of the punitive discharge and reduction in grade, during which the applicant was required to participate satisfactorily in an acceptable sex offender FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 rehabilitation program, was limited to five years; 3) involuntary appellate leave was to be applied to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02605
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02605 INDEX CODE: 113.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: It appears that the applicant is requesting that the period he was on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) be credited as active duty and his date of retirement be changed to reflect 14 Aug 94. On 26 Jul 94, a TDRL...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01497
On 17 Jul 00, the AFBCMR considered and granted the applicant's request to be advanced to the grade of captain (O-3E) on the Retired List. DPPRRP stated that Section 8964, Title 10, USC, allows the advancement of warrant officers of the Air Force (when their active service plus service on the retired list totals 30 years) on the retired list to the highest grade in which they served on active duty satisfactorily as determined by the Secretary of the Air Force. The applicant was advanced to...