RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03813
INDEX NUMBER: 100.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 Nov 05
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His former rank of staff sergeant (E-5) be restored.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His former rank should be restored due to the financial hardship the
reduction in grade has placed him in. Due to disciplinary action, he lost
his staff sergeant stripe. However, he remained in the service and retired
in the grade of sergeant (E-4). Due to the financial hardship since the
loss of his staff sergeant stripe and filing bankruptcy, he has no choice
but to request relief.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Air Force on 26
February 1975. 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 entered his last enlistment on 11 February 1993.
On 30 January 1990, applicant was tried by General Court-Martial. He was
charged with violating Article 128 (Assault) of the UCMJ. Specifically,
that on divers occasions from, on or about 1 March 1989 to on or about 17
June 1989, he committed an assault upon a child under the age of 16 years,
inflicting grievous bodily harm. Applicant pled guilty to the charged
offense, except the words “yanking or jerking her extremities and/or
assault” and the words “and did thereby intentionally inflict grievous
bodily harm upon her, to wit: both bones in her left forearm broken, one of
these forearm bones being broken on two separate occasions, her left upper
arm broken, her right upper arm twisted without fracture, her right leg
broken, and her left leg broken.” He was found guilty of the offense
except the words “and or striking.” He was sentenced to a bad conduct
discharge, confinement for seven months, and reduction to the grade of
sergeant. The portion of the sentence as pertained to the bad conduct
discharge and confinement in excess of four months was suspended until
20 April 1992. 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).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRRP recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that
prior to applicant’s retirement, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel
Council (SAF/PC) denied his advancement to the grade of staff sergeant when
his active service plus service on the retired list totals 30 years.
Although applicant’s hardcopy Unit Personnel Record Group (UPRG) and
microfiche contain no SAF/PC advancement letter, AFPC/DPPRRP feels there is
sufficient evidence to show that a SAF/PC decision to deny advancement to
the grade of staff sergeant had been made prior to his retirement.
Further, the Military Personnel Data System (MPDS) Retired Enlisted File
shows advancement action “B” which means “advancement disapproved by
SAF/PC.” In addition, his retirement order does not address advancement
and an effective date, which it would have if the Secretary had determined
he should be advanced to the grade of staff sergeant on the retired list.
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 21 January 2005 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. 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 its 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-2004-03813
in Executive Session on 23 March 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman, III, Panel Chair
Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Member
Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Dec 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 7 Jan 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jan 05.
FREDERICK R. BEAMAN, III
Panel Chair
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 | 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...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial. DPPRRP states that the applicant, a prior service master...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Applicant’s response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
The two staff sergeants, whose reductions in rank were approved, obtained their rank of staff sergeant by virtue of cheating for which they were punished. After considering the integrity offense the applicant committed, it is consistent that the members concluded he was not fit to be a noncommissioned officer and sentenced him to be reduced to the grade of E-4, senior airman. AFLSA/JAJM complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. In addressing the promotion and testing issues,...
However, in accordance with the provisions of law, the applicant was correctly retired in the grade of SRA, which was the grade he held on the date of his retirement. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that he is not in agreement with the decision made at this time on his request for highest grade held. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-01286A
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit H. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request for an audit of the applicant’s service record, HQ AFPC/DPPAOR reviewed the applicant’s master personnel record and found the DD Form 13, Statement of Service, to be correct. Although his flight records during the period in question reflect the grade of captain and that, on 26 June 1957, he was separated from active...
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-2003-03227
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...
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...