RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00938
INDEX CODE: 121.00
COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 30 SEPTEMBER 2007
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His retired pay account be reviewed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He does not know if he received a pay raise in October 1971.
In support of his application, applicant provided a personal letter.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant was placed on the retired list pursuant to the provisions of
Title 10, USC, section 8914 effective 1 February 1971 in the grade of
master sergeant. His retired pay was computed based on the active duty
basic pay rates that became effective 1 January 1971. The active duty basic
pay for an MSgt with 20 years of service was $642.80 at that time. His
initial retired pay entitlement was $326.40 ($652.80 X 50%), which was
increased effective 1 June 1971 to 328.36 based on the cost of living
increase. His current pay entitlement is $1566.00 and is correct.
Unfortunately, DFAS does not have the 1984 Navy Times article that was
referenced, so DFAS cannot comment on what it might have stated. DFAS is
aware that President Nixon delayed the active duty pay increase that was to
be effective on October 1, 1972 to January 1, 1973. This decision was later
overturned by the Supreme Court, and all affected members had their pay
corrected. However, members on the retired rolls at that time were not
affected by this. Retired pay is increased based on cost of living
increases, not by the increases to active duty pay.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
DFAS recommends denial and states that there is no evidence of any error,
and no correction is authorized.
DFAS's complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 May
2006 for review and comment within 30 days. 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 to include his
contention that he did not receive a pay raise in October 1971; 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-2006-00938
in Executive Session on 6 June 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
Mr. Eddie C. Lewis, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Mar 06.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, DFAS, dated 28 Apr 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 May 06.
JAMES W. RUSSELL III
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01422
After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his current retirement pay should be increased based on the latest retirement pay chart. Therefore, we agree with the recommendations 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. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03541
DFAS-POCC/DE states the applicant was discharged with an SPD code of MND. The applicant asserts that he was told by his officers that he would not have to repay his SEB when he voluntarily submitted a request for separation under the LADSC Waiver Program. JAMES W. RUSSELL III Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-03541 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552,...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02124
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02124 INDEX NUMBER: 136.00 XXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 JAN 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be eligible for benefits under the Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) program. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-00574
During the active duty continuation, he was paid BAH II instead of the BAH I that he was entitled to. During the time the AFBCMR continued him on active duty, he received BAH II at the with-dependent rate, Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) and Aviator Career Incentive Pay (ACIP) from 1 October 2004 through 31 January 2006, less any offsets for civilian earnings during that time frame. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00117
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She took her oath of office and became a member of the Air Force on 29 Mar 63, which would credit her with over 20 years of service for purposes of qualifying her for the CRDP. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00619
The applicant incurred a debt of $23,177.40 due to the receipt of erroneous payments of BAH and Overseas Housing Allowance (OHA) from 26 Aug 98 through 30 Apr 02. Therefore, he should have questioned his pay when he moved into family quarters overseas and started receiving BAH and OHA. Had the applicant questioned his pay within a reasonable amount of time, he would not have incurred such a large debt.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01116
He lost his rank and was discharged early because of PTSD and states the rules pertaining to PTSD awards and benefits need to be changed for all who suffer. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial of the applicant’s request for the PH based on the fact he is requesting the PH for a non-enemy action injury. DPPPR concludes there is no evidence in the applicant’s official record or documentation provided to verify he was injured by enemy action.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC2006-03165
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03165 INDEX CODE: 107.00 LESLEY D. RHODES COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 19 Apr 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 7, Airman Military Record, be corrected to reflect the following: Item 5. However, his AF Form 626, reflecting temporary duty (TDY) in connection with his award...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03482
He was discharged for miscellaneous/general reasons on 10 Jan 05 and given a separation code of “KND.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request. Based on the documentation on file in the records, the applicant’s separation was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulations. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00749
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an Investigation Report pertaining to the applicant, which is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial and states based on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. AFPC/JA's...