RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03227
INDEX NUMBER: 100.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His grade be advanced on the retired list to technical sergeant, with all
back pay.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He has recently learned that after being on the retired list for a period
of ten years, his rank could be advanced to the highest grade he held on
active duty. In view of this, he believes his retirement grade should be
reflected as the highest grade he held on active duty.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits his personal statement and a
copy of the orders promoting him to the grade of technical sergeant.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered active duty on 25 October 1968. He served on
continuous active duty and was progressively promoted to the grade of
technical sergeant, with a date of rank of 1 September 1986. He received
an Article 15 on 28 December 1987 for operating a vehicle while drunk and
was reduced to the grade of staff sergeant and ordered to forfeit $200.00
of his pay for two months.
On 2 August 1988, he applied for voluntary retirement to be effective
1 November 1988; his commander approved his request. On 27 September 1988,
the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Counsel (SAF/PC) found that he did
not satisfactorily serve in any higher grade than staff sergeant. 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.
_________________________________________________________________
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 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.
The AFPC/DPPRRP evaluation, with attachments, 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 15 November 2003 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 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 than staff sergeant and he was
retired in that grade, effective 1 November 1988. 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-2003-03227
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 22 Sep 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 31 Oct 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Nov 03.
BRENDA L. ROMINE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00936
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...
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 | 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...
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 | 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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-01118
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to his nonjudicial punishment, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM reviewed this application and recommends denial. DPPPWB states that the applicant’s punishment consisted of a reduction from the grade of MSgt (E-7) to TSgt (E-6) with a new date of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01771
On 9 Jul 93, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAF/PC) considered the applicant's case and determined that the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in the grade of master sergeant and did not warrant advancement on the Retired list. The adjudged sentence indicates the members considered his mitigating factors. Accordingly, we recommend that his records be corrected to reflect that when his combined active service time plus time on the Retired list equals 30 years, he...
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.
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 | 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.