RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02279
INDEX NUMBER: 128.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His retired pay be recomputed to include an additional 2.5% or 52.5%
of base pay vice 50%.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was told when he retired he would receive an additional 2.5%
because he was retiring in 1974.
In support of his appeal, applicant provides copies of correspondence
he previously sent to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service
(DFAS) and his congressman.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant retired from the Air Force effective 1 Sep 74 in the
grade of master sergeant (E-7) after 20 years, 2 months, and 22 days
of service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRRP recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The
applicant retired with active service of 20 years, 2 months, and 22
days effective 1 Sep 74. Prior to 1 Jan 82, the Career Compensation
Act of 1949 (Title 37, Section 231) required that a fraction of less
than one-half of a year be disregarded in calculating retired pay.
Based on the applicant’s length of service, his retired pay was
calculated at 2.5% times 20 years resulting in retired pay of 50% of
his final basic pay.
The complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 17 Sep 04 for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a
response has not been received.
_________________________________________________________________
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;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of
an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis 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 Docket Number BC-2004-
02279 in Executive Session on 2 November 2004, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Jul 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 10 Sep 04,
w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Sep 04.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00052
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that at the time, the applicant did not contest the IPEB’s decision to decrease the 22% disability rating to 10% because his service medical records indicated the condition existed prior to service. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01847
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/DPX recommended denial indicating the applicant made no claim for sanctuary protection while serving on active duty (other than for training). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 16 Jul 04 for review and response. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02159
The applicant being an enlisted member at the time of his retirement was retired under the law that applies to Air Force enlisted members. While he did serve on active duty as a commissioned officer from 3 May 79 to 15 Aug 85, he was not entitled to retire as an officer because he had less than 10 years of active commissioned service as required by the applicable law. Applicant wants to know how someone can be retired as an officer and serve on active duty as an enlisted member.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00872
_________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that Item 30, Remarks, of the DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, issued in conjunction with his honorable discharge on 9 April 1969, be amended to include 91 days of Temporary Duty (TDY) to XXXX. The following documentary evidence was...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02792
The DPSFM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPRRP recommends approval based on the fact that he sold back 28 days of leave based on information provided to him by his Financial Service Office. Since applicant had requested a retirement date of 1 Sep 02, we do not believe that a change in his retirement is warranted. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2003-02792 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02624
Regular enlisted members may, when their active service plus service on the retired list total 30 years, be advanced (on the retired list) and receive retired pay in the highest grade held on active duty satisfactorily, as determined by the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) or designee under Title 10, USC, Section 8964. The order also advised that, effective 9 Jun 04, the applicant would be advanced on the USAF retired list to the grade of SSgt, the highest grade held on active duty, by...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02082
The applicant’s commander nonselected the applicant for reenlistment on Air Force (AF) Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration on 12 May 2004. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPFF states the Air Force Instruction (AFI) 10-248, Fitness Program addresses administrative and personnel actions to take when servicemembers receive poor fitness scores. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. HQ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02994
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02994 INDEX NUMBER: 128.05 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted the Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) for his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), 4N051, Aerospace Medical Service Journeyman. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00353
The Board may correct a record to reflect actions taken by reviewing authorities under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally the Board may correct records related to action on the sentence of court-martial for the purpose of clemency. The applicant was charged with violating a lawful general regulation in Korea by transferring duty-free goods in violation of Article 92, UCMJ.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02254
_________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have been awarded the PH since he was wounded in Vietnam. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that they could not find any support for award of the PH. Should the applicant provide evidence that he was injured as a direct result of enemy action, the Board will...