RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01512
INDEX NUMBER: 100.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 6 NOV 06
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect he retired in the grade of Chief Master
Sergeant (CMSgt) rather than Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt).
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
After 24 years of service, he received an Article 15 and was demoted to the
rank of SMSgt. He is remorseful for his actions that let to his demotion
and requests that he be retired at the higher grade of CMSgt.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 17 May 1977, as
an airman basic (AB) for a period of four years. He was released from
active duty on 22 February 1979 and transferred to the Air Force Reserves
on 23 February 1979. The applicant enlisted in the Connecticut Air
National Guard (ANG) on 6 March 1979, where he served continuously until
ordered to extended active duty (EAD) on 29 June 1998.
The applicant received an Article 15 on 28 February 2001 for stealing
merchandise from the Base Exchange in the amount of $85.95. His punishment
consisted of a reduction in rank from CMSgt to SMSgt with a new date of
rank (DOR) of 1 March 2001.
The applicant retired on 1 May 2002, in the grade of SMSgt with service
characterized as honorable. He served 20 years, 4 months and 14 days of
active duty service.
On 26 May 2005, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Counsel (SAFPC)
determined the applicant will be advanced to the grade of CMSgt on the
retired list when his active service plus his service on the retired list
totals 30 years (17 December 2011).
On 31 May 2005, HQ USAF/DPPRRP informed the applicant his retirement orders
were amended on 27 May 2005 to reflect he will be advanced to the higher
grade of CMSgt on the retired list effective 17 December 2011.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRRP states in accordance with Title 10 United States Code (USC),
Section 8961, unless entitled to a higher grade under some other provision
of law, a regular or reserve servicemember of the Air Force who retires
other than for physical disability retires in the regular or reserve grade
held on the date of their retirement.
10 USC 8963, Highest grade held satisfactorily: Reserve enlisted members
reduced in grade not as a result of misconduct, states that if a reserve
enlisted member retires under 10 USC 8914, the member shall be retired in
the highest enlisted grade in which the servicemember served on active duty
satisfactory, but excludes from this consideration those who were reduced
in grade as a result of the member’s misconduct. The applicant was not
eligible to retire in the higher grade under 10 USC 8963 because he was
demoted for misconduct.
HQ AFPC/DPPRRP, based on the information provided, recommends the requested
relief be denied.
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 10 June 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 an error or an injustice. We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree
with the opinion and the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt its
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been
the victim of an error or an injustice. The applicant was demoted from
CMSgt to SMSgt due to misconduct. As a result, the applicant was retired
in the grade of SMSgt in accordance with 10 USC 8961 which states a
servicemember will be retired in the grade held on the date of retirement.
It appears that at the time of his retirement he was not considered for a
highest grade determination. Therefore, when his application was received,
AFPC/DPPRRP forwarded his package to SAFPC for a highest grade
determination. On 26 May 2005, SAFPC determined the applicant will be
advanced to the grade of CMSgt on the retired list on 17 December 2011 when
his active service plus his service on the retired list totals 30 years.
The applicant has not submitted persuasive evidence that he should have
been retired in the higher grade in 2002. Therefore, we find no compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to
our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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-2005-01512
in Executive Session on 4 August 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Apr 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 31 May 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 05.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03259
Title 10 USC, Section 1407(f)(2)(B), states if an enlisted member was at any time reduced in grade as the result of a court-martial sentence, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative action, unless the member was subsequently promoted to a higher enlisted grade, the computation of retired pay is determined under Title 10 USC, Section 1406, Retired pay base for members who first became members before September 1980: final basic pay. The applicant further contends the demotion was invalid...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-01771
According to the Area Defense Counsel's handout, "the member receives retirement pay at the highest grade held after becoming eligible to retire. On 1 Jun 05, the applicant retired as a reserve MSgt with more than 2 years of creditable service for an active duty retirement under federal law. JA notes the highest grade held on active duty satisfactorily by the applicant was CMSgt, thereby permitting him to be advanced to that grade upon reaching 30 years of service.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01435
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was demoted to SMSgt through Article 15 punishment after he had an approved retirement date. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01722
On 8 Jul 98, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council determined that the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in any higher grade than SMSgt and would not be advanced under the provisions of Section 8964, Title 10, U.S.C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRRP recommends denial of the applicant’s request. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00827
He be advanced to the highest grade held (HGH) of Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt), effective 1 March 1992, based upon over 30 years of service in the armed forces as enacted into law per 10 USC 8964(F), Public Law 100-180, 4 December 1987. It was determined that the applicant had served satisfactorily in the highest grade of CMSgt and that he be advanced on 27 February 2002, which is the date the applicant will have completed 30 years of active service and service on the retired list. He...
He be advanced to the highest grade held (HGH) of Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt), effective 1 March 1992, based upon over 30 years of service in the armed forces as enacted into law per 10 USC 8964(F), Public Law 100-180, 4 December 1987. It was determined that the applicant had served satisfactorily in the highest grade of CMSgt and that he be advanced on 27 February 2002, which is the date the applicant will have completed 30 years of active service and service on the retired list. He...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05366
On 9 Apr 2010, the Secretary of the Air Force determined she would not be advanced to the higher grade of CMSgt when her time on active duty and her time on the retired list totaled 30 years (10 USC § 8964). From the plain language of the statute, she is eligible for advancement on the retired list to the highest grade on active duty served satisfactorily. Her active duty time and her time on the retired list has now reached 30 years and she is eligible to seek and attain her previous rank...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00059
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He served in the grade of master sergeant (MSgt) from 1 October 1974 to 3 December 1974; therefore, he should be retired in that grade. The DPPRRP evaluation is at Exhibit D. The SAFPC Legal Advisor concurs with DPPPWB that denial of the applicant’s request is appropriate since he voluntarily refused promotion to MSgt. In response to DPPRRP’s request for review, the SAFPC Legal Advisor states that...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03407
The other is Section 8964, which is a separate section dealing with circumstances not applicable to his situation. In this respect, we note that Section 8963, Title 10 USC, allows members to retire in the highest grade in which they served on active duty satisfactorily as determined by the Secretary of the Air Force. Further, SAFPC determined the applicant served satisfactorily on active duty in the grade of MSgt and should be retired in that grade.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00612
He receive retirement pay in the rank of CMSgt from the date of promotion. On 21 Apr 03, the AFBCMR approved his request and directed that his records be corrected to reflect that he was not discharged on 14 Dec 00, but on that date he was continued on active duty, promoted to MSgt on 30 May 02, discharged under honorable conditions on 31 May 02, and retired on 1 Jun 02 for length of service in the grade of MSgt. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the...