RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1998-02164
INDEX CODE: 136.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reinstated to his Active Guard Reserve (AGR) position with the
Pennsylvania Air National Guard (PAANG) and he be promoted to the
grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was unquestionably and wrongly subjected to action associated with
a Reduction in Force (RIF), disregarded for retention in the PAANG,
given an unwarranted order to begin immediate processing for
retirement, and was not given any opportunity to transition through
the normal stages of enlistment or voluntary retirement. Further, any
opportunity to continue fulltime employment was negated by removing
him from his fulltime position into an overage in clear disregard of
standing military instructions, and led to a subsequent adverse action
to immediately retire him.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal
statement with several attachments.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted with the Air National Guard on 19 June 1969 and was
progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant with a date of
rank (DOR) of 19 November 1980. The State of Pennsylvania has a
standing policy that, though with certain exceptions based on mission
requirements, AGR members who reach 20 years of active duty must apply
for active duty retirement or face separation action. With his unit
facing a imminent Reduction in Force (RIF) that would cause the
reduction of a certain number of Security Forces personnel, the PAANG
was felt obligated to ameliorate the impact of a RIF on all concerned
airman. Therefore, as he had served over 20 years of active duty, he
was encouraged to apply for an active duty retirement or face
separation action. He applied for voluntary retirement on 13 May
1994. He was therefore relieved of his assignment with the PAANG on
31 July 1994, and retired for length of service effective 1 August
1994. He was serving in the grade of master sergeant at the time of
his retirement and had served a total of 24 years, 4 months, and 28
days of total service for pay.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPPU recommends denial. DPPU states, he made application for
voluntary retirement and therefore did not face a RIF or a state
selective retention board. He reached his 20 years as an AGR and in
line with Pennsylvania policy he applied for retirement in lieu of
separation action.
DPPU’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant notes his gratitude for a career of military service and
thanks the Board for its consideration of his application.
_________________________________________________________________
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
National Guard 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. In order to receive retired
pay in the grade of senior master sergeant, he must have been promoted
to and served satisfactorily in the Reserve grade of senior master
sergeant. The evidence of record shows the highest federally
recognized grade he was promoted to and served satisfactorily in was
the Reserve grade of master sergeant. The applicant applied for
voluntary retirement prior to an impending Reduction In Force action
avoiding involuntary separation action. His separation appears to be
in compliance with governing Air National Guard Instructions and State
of Pennsylvania policies regarding separation and retirement of active
duty Guardsmen. Therefore, based on the available evidence of record,
we find no basis upon which to favorably consider 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
1998-02164 in Executive Session on 14 June 2006, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated, w/atchs
Exhibit B. Letter, ANG/DPPU, dated 7 Oct 98
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MIBR, 2 Nov 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01899
DPP states, in order for him to receive retired pay in the grade of master sergeant, he must have been promoted to the grade of master sergeant and have served satisfactorily in that grade. It appears evidence provided by the applicant to the contrary can be attributed to an honorary promotion to master sergeant conferred upon the applicant by the State of Pennsylvania and was not a federally recognized promotion. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-02537
A request to retire (Temporary Early Retirement Authority – TERA) should have been approved by the Air National Guard (ANG) and the U.S. Air Force. His application to retire early under TERA was disapproved and he subsequently accepted an SSB as a result of an involuntary RIF action. The DPPI statement “116th Wing commander elected to fund the new CM position and according to Georgia (ANG) the applicant did not apply for the position when the vacancy was announced.” He began terminal leave...
The applicant was progressively promoted to the Reserve of the Air Force and Air National Guard grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5), with a promotion service date (PSD) of 11 Jan 87 and an effective date of 15 May 87. By ANG Special Order AP-124, dated 5 Jun 98, he was promoted to the Reserve of the Air Force and Air National Guard grade of colonel (O-6), with a PSD and effective date of 30 Jun 96. In the applicant’s case, as a colonel (O-6), he could have served to age 60 or 30 years of...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00077
However, after the transfer, the KYANG informed him they would not honor the commission that he had been approved for until there was a unit vacancy for a weather officer. He had served almost 30 years and was serving in the grade of SMSgt at the time of his transfer to the Retired Reserve. It appears the applicant has been the victim of unfortunate timing at several times in his career; however, in order to receive retired pay in an officer grade, the member must be commissioned as an...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03433
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03433 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM). The ANG notes the PAANG at that time routinely awarded technical training school honor graduates with the Pennsylvania Commendation Medal and would have returned the AF Form 642...
If the Board grants the request, the cost of premiums should be deducted from payments. He provided documentation that clearly indicates the Ready Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Program was established by Congress to provide coverage for Reservists who have been issued an order to involuntary active duty for covered service under the authority of Title 10, USC, Section 12304. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01288
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was discharged from the TN ANG for unsatisfactory participation on 31 May 1997 after serving seven years, nine months, and six days of combined Reserve component and Regular Air Force service. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and while we sympathize with the applicant’s civilian employment predicament at the time, there is simply no...
However, the DOD IG concluded that his allegation of reprisal was not substantiated (Exhibit C). No evidence has been presented which would lead us to believe that the findings of the DOD IG were erroneous. Applicant's Master Personnel Records and Exhibit C. DOD IG Report, dated 4 Jun 96 (withdrawn).
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00627
However, the DOD IG concluded that his allegation of reprisal was not substantiated (Exhibit C). No evidence has been presented which would lead us to believe that the findings of the DOD IG were erroneous. Applicant's Master Personnel Records and Exhibit C. DOD IG Report, dated 4 Jun 96 (withdrawn).
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03307
The letter asked that he call and he did so numerous times, but received no answer. He returned to duty with the ANG on 20 November 1984 and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 October 1994. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While the applicant appreciates the ANG’s recommendation that his former grade be reinstated, he provides evidence he was within weeks or...