RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01899
INDEX CODE: 131.09
COUNSEL: Lawrence N. Paper
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to show he retired in the grade of master
sergeant (E7) rather than technical sergeant (E6).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was promoted to the grade of master sergeant on 1 July 1985 and was
placed on the retired list on 2 July 1985. However, he was placed on
the retired list as a technical sergeant. He should have been retired
as a master sergeant.
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:
He enlisted in the US Army Air Corps on 3 November 1947. He enlisted
in the Pennsylvania Air National Guard (PAANG) on 15 May 1971. He was
progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant with a date
of rank (DOR) of 1 December 1972. On 29 May 1985, he was promoted to
the grade of master sergeant by the State of Pennsylvania under the
auspices of the Military Code of Pennsylvania effective 1 July 1985.
He was retired on 2 July 1985 in the highest federally recognized
grade of technical sergeant after having served for over 31 years.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ ARPC/DPP recommends denial. DPP states he was transferred to the
Retired Reserve on 2 July 1985 and has been receiving Reserve retired
pay in the grade of technical sergeant since his 60th birthday. 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. He was promoted by the
State of Pennsylvania in accordance with the Military Code of
Pennsylvania and the promotion was therefore an honorary promotion and
not federally recognized. Therefore, the highest grade he held
satisfactorily was technical sergeant.
DPP’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
He feels as though he deserves and is entitled to promotion to the
grade of master sergeant.
Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
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. In order to receive retired pay in the grade of
master sergeant, he must have been promoted to and served
satisfactorily in the Reserve grade of 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 technical
sergeant. 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. 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-01899 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 3 Jun 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, ARPC/DPP, dated 11 Jul 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jul 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 26 May 06, w/atchs.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-04005
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-04005 INDEX CODE: 131.09 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His retired grade be corrected to show that he retired in the grade of senior master sergeant rather than master sergeant. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: According to...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-1998-02164
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). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01659
DPP states to establish eligibility for Reserve retired pay a member must complete 20 years of satisfactory Federal service and have the last 8 years of qualifying service in a Reserve component. DPP asserts since he does not have 20 years of satisfactory service, he is not entitled to Reserve retired pay or any benefits associated with it. His retirement order did authorize an Armed Forces Identification Card at the time of his retirement, but since the member is not entitled to Reserve...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02386
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He contends he was appointed as a USAF Academy Liaison Officer in the December 1985/January 1986 time frame, and has 23 years of satisfactory service. Therefore, DPP states the applicant is not eligible for Reserve retired pay, or any benefits associated with retired pay since he did not complete 20 years of satisfactory service. Records indicate he has not met the requirement of earning 20...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01714
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. A review of the reconstructed documents indicates that the applicant completed 14 years, 2 months and 14 days of honorable Federal service; however, only 11 years, 4 months and 10 days of this time is satisfactory service creditable toward retired pay eligibility. However, insufficient documentary evidence has been presented to indicate the applicant was eligible for promotion to the grade of captain prior to his...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01131
On 25 Aug 95, applicant was notified that she was not recommended for promotion by the Reserve of the Air Force Selection Board, and as a result she had to be transferred to a non participating status in the Air Force Reserve. The 25 Aug 95 letter also provided information on continuing Reserve service as an enlisted member. The DPP complete evaluation, with attachments is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01652
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01652 INDEX CODE: 135.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 4 DEC 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be given credit for the Air University course 00050 – History of U.S. Air Power. DPP states the change to the Reserve status prohibited the applicant from earning a satisfactory Federal...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00843
As a result of missing medical records she was not able to complete her enlistment with the PAANG and begin earning points until 23 January 2004, after the affected R/R year had passed. DPP notes the issue of missing medical records as the cause of her not earning her final point with the PAANG in time is not relevant. DPP’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
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...
Following a break in service, he enlisted in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of staff sergeant on 11 January 1973 for a period of three (3) years under the Air Reserve Technician (ART) Program. In a message dated 16 January 1981, personnel at the applicant’s unit indicated that his transfer to the Retired Reserve had been delayed to allow the applicant to accrue sufficient points to be credited with his 20th good year. In view of the foregoing, and because we are convinced by the...