RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00936
INDEX NUMBER: 100.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His grade be advanced on the retired list to technical sergeant.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The highest rank he held while on active duty was E-6. He earned the rank
of E-6, with a lot of work and long hours. He served his country
faithfully and honorably for over 20 years.
He was supposed to be retired at the highest rank held, when he reached 30
years of total service. He has done this and the advancement on the
retired list did not happen. He tried to find out why and never received
an answer.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 18 August 1954
for a period of four years. He served on continuous active duty and was
progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant, with a date of
rank of 1 August 1968. He received an Article 15 on 6 November 1970 for
being drunk and disorderly in station on or about 4 November 1970 and was
reduced to the grade of staff sergeant and ordered to forfeit $100.00 of
his pay for two months, restriction to the base for a period of 30
consecutive days. However, the execution of the portion of the punishment
which pertained to the reduction in grade and forfeiture which exceeded
$50.00 of pay per month for two months and 30 day base restriction was
suspended until 28 April 1971 unless sooner vacated. On 22 February 1971,
the applicant was convicted of being drunk and disorderly by the 81st
District Court of Michigan. For this misconduct, his punishment consisted
of paying $35.00 and the suspension of his previous misconduct was vacated
due to the misconduct on 14 February 1971.
The applicant retired on 1 September 1974 with service characterized as
honorable. On 19 May 1976, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel
Counsel (SAF/PC) found the applicant did not satisfactorily serve in any
higher grade than staff sergeant. He was retired in the grade of staff
sergeant, effective 1 September 1974, and was credited with 20 years and 13
days of active service for retirement.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRRP recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that
advancement on the retired list to the highest grade satisfactorily held on
active duty is authorized when a member’s active service plus service on
the retired list totals 30 years and if it is determined by the Secretary
of the Air Force that he satisfactorily held the higher grade. The SAF/PC
determined that the applicant did not satisfactorily serve in any grade
higher than staff sergeant and he was correctly retired in the grade he
held at the time of his retirement.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with an attachment, is at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 16 April 2004 for review and response within 30 days. However, as of
this date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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. On 19 May 1976, the Secretary of the Air
Force Personnel Counsel (SAF/PC) found that the applicant did not
satisfactorily serve in any higher grade than staff sergeant and he was
retired in that grade, effective 1 September 1974. After a thorough review
of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded
that this determination should be overturned. In the absence of evidence
that SAF/PC’s determination was arbitrary or capricious, we find that he
has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an
injustice. Hence, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the
relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number BC-2004-00936
in Executive Session on 18 May 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Mar 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 7 Apr 04, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Apr 04.
BRENDA L. ROMINE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2003-03227
He was retired in the grade of staff sergeant, effective 1 November 1988, and was credited with 20 years and 6 days of active service for retirement. The SAF/PC determined that the applicant did not satisfactorily serve in any grade higher than staff sergeant and he was correctly retired in the grade he held at the time of his retirement. On 27 September 1988, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Counsel (SAF/PC) found that the applicant did not satisfactorily serve in any higher grade...
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 | 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...
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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-01345
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01345 INDEX CODE: 131.09 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His retirement grade of senior airman (E-4) be changed to reflect technical sergeant (E-6) and that he receive consideration for reinstatement to the grade of master sergeant (E-7). A Monthly Retirement Pay Estimate was introduced into...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00487
Applicant requests that his reduction to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) imposed as punishment under Article 15 on 18 Aug 03 be set aside or suspended and he be returned to the grade of master sergeant (E-7). In support of his appeal, applicant attaches a summary of the charges and payments he made on his government credit card, character references, and copies of the leave log to show he was on leave. At the time the applicant retired, he held the grade of master 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 | CY2005 | BC-2004-03813
He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), with an effective date and date of rank of 1 February 1983. He was voluntarily retired on 1 June 1995, in the grade of sergeant (E-4), having served 20 years and 1 day of active duty (excludes time lost for 95 days due to confinement from 30 Jan 90 through 3 May 90). We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air...
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 | 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...