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 Special Order AA-101-SC, dated 5 February 2007, he was
promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant.
In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of Special Order
AA-101-SC, Reserve Order Number EL-5291, and NGB Form 22 - National Guard
Bureau Report of Separation and Record of Service.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from documentation provided by the applicant reflects
he retired from the Air National Guard on 22 May 2007 in the grade of
master sergeant with 28 years, 5 months, and 29 days of service for basic
pay.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPP recommends denial. DPP states the applicant was transferred to
the USAF Retired List on 22 May 2007 in the grade of master sergeant. He
has been receiving retired pay under the provision of Title 10, United
States Code (U.S.C.), Section 12731, since 22 May 2007, his 60th birthday,
in the grade of master sergeant.
In order to receive retired pay in the grade of senior master sergeant, a
member must be promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant as a Reserve
of the Air Force and serve satisfactorily in that grade. There is no
documentation in the applicant’s record that verifies he was ever promoted
to the grade of senior master sergeant or served satisfactorily in that
grade. His record does show that he was relieved from his active Air
National Guard assignment effective 20 May 2007 in the South Carolina Air
National Guard (ANG). At the time of his discharge, the South Carolina ANG
promoted him to the grade of senior master sergeant and placed him on the
Retired List of the South Carolina ANG effective 21 May 2007. This
promotion was a state promotion authorized under the Military Code of South
Carolina. State promotions are honorary promotions and are not federally
recognized promotions.
The highest grade the applicant held during his military career was master
sergeant. Since the applicant did not receive a federally recognized
promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant, he cannot be placed on
the USAF Retired List or receive retired pay in that grade. The applicant
is receiving retired pay in the correct grade of master sergeant.
ARPC/DPP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 18 January 2008, the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for
review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). 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 injustice. The applicant’s contentions are duly
noted; however, after reviewing the evidence of record 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.
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 involved. Therefore, the request for
a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the
existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a
personal appearance; and 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-2007-
04005 in Executive Session on 27 February 2008, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Panel Chair
Ms. Dee R. Reardon, Member
Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 November 2007, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, ARPC/DPP, dated 10 January 2008.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 January 2008.
MICHAEL J. MAGLIO
Panel Chair
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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-01269
The applicant did not complete three years active duty service in the grade of colonel to retire voluntarily. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, the Board has determined the evidence supports the fact that the applicant was involuntarily released from active duty effective 30 November 2002 and retired effective 1 December 2002. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02809
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-02809 INDEX CODE: COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect one year of satisfactory service for the period of 30 Jan 83 through 14 Jan 84. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His service record no longer...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02700
Due to an administrative error by the ARPC retirement technician, the case was not sent to SAFPC for a grade determination and the incorrect grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) was placed on the retirement order. In Thomas, the veteran requested a change in record because of the inequity that would occur otherwise, Id. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01432
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01432 INDEX CODE: 135.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His record be corrected to show satisfactory years of service for retention/retirement (R/R) year’s 17 April 1982 to 16 April 1983, 17 April 1984 to 16 April 1985, 17 April 1986 to 16 April 1987, and 17 April 1987 to 16 April...
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 | CY2008 | BC-2007-02755
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02755 INDEX CODES: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be immediately promoted to the Reserve grade of colonel, with a retroactive date of 2006; or, in the alternative, his record be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to the grade of colonel by the Fiscal...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01235
Special Order AA-0430, dated 24 10 June 2005, indicates in paragraph 3, “NO TRAVEL AUTHORIZED.” The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibits B and C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPP recommends the applicant’s request be denied. DPP states according to the JFTR, members are...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00117
Although the IDT periods he is claiming are from many years ago, the evidence he is submitting clearly substantiates the performance of the duty being claimed. 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 since the non-pay...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01044
His retired pay is based on 2,680 retirement points and over 33 years of service for basic pay in the grade of technical sergeant. The complete DPP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and provided copies of documents associated with the events cited in his appeal. After a thorough review of the available evidence and the...