RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-04290
INDEX CODE: 112.07
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be advanced on the Retired List to the grade of technical sergeant.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
When he retired from the Air Force he was directed to wait ten
(10) years into retirement and request advancement on the Retired List
to the grade of technical sergeant. He ran into family problems in
the middle of his career and made a bad decision for which he
ultimately paid the price. He served his last few years admirably,
ended his career on a strong point, and received the Air Force
Commendation Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters (AFCM w/3 OLC) when he
retired. Since his retirement, he has received several job promotions
and has changed his life.
In support of his request, the applicant provides excerpts from his
military personnel records.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 Nov 78 for a
term of four years and was progressively promoted to the grade of
technical sergeant.
In Oct 93, he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, for
Drunken or Reckless Driving, under Article 128, and Assault, under
Article 134, General Article. He was reduced in grade by his
commander from technical sergeant to staff sergeant, with a 1 Nov 93
date of rank.
On 13 Apr 98, the Secretary of the Air Force determined the applicant
did not serve satisfactorily in the higher grade of technical
sergeant, and that he would not be advanced on the Retired List. On
30 Nov 98, the applicant retired in the grade of staff sergeant.
He served a total of 20 years, and 11 days of active service.
On 12 Feb 09, his records were corrected to reflect award of the Air
Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) w/3 Oak Leaf Clusters (OLC).
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOR recommends the Secretary of the Air Force reconsider the
applicant’s advancement on the Retired List to the grade of technical
sergeant and give consideration to the additional Enlisted Evaluation
Report and the Citation for the AFCM w/3 OLCs that was not considered
by the Secretary of the Air Force during the 13 Apr 98 denial of
advancement.
The complete DPSOR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
SAF/MRBP recommends denial. SAF/MRBP states that although the
applicant was awarded an AFCM w/3 OLCs upon retirement, and performed
admirably and honorably after his administrative demotion, there is
insufficient new information to approve his advancement on the Retired
List.
The complete SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 15
Sep 09, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. The applicant's complete
submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly
noted. However, we do not find his assertions and the documentation
submitted in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to warrant
any corrective action. We note that in 1998, the Secretary of the Air
Force Personnel Council (now SAF/MRBP) made a determination the
applicant had not served satisfactorily in the grade of technical
sergeant and that he should not be advanced on the Retired List to the
higher grade. No evidence has been presented showing that their
determination was based on erroneous information or was an abuse of
discretionary authority. SAF/MRBP has reviewed the applicant’s
submission to the Board requesting that he be advanced on the Retired
List to the grade of technical sergeant based on his service prior to
his retirement, award of the AFCM, 3OLC at his retirement, as well as
his post-service life over the ten years since his retirement.
However, SAF/MRBP did not find the new information provided by the
applicant sufficient to recommend approval his advancement on the
Retired List. After a thorough review of the facts and circumstances
of this case, we agree with SAF/MRBP’s recommendation to deny the
appeal and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision
the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he
has suffered either an error or an injustice. Accordingly, 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-2008-
04290 in Executive Session on 20 Oct 09, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Dec 08, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 22 Dec 08, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 10 Sep 09.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Sep 09.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03102
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03102 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive a 10 percent increase in retirement pay for award of the Airmens Medal. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) (SAF/MRBP) review and advise whether the applicants award of the Airmans Medal for heroism on 1 Jul 98 qualifies for...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03248
DPPPWB advises that Air Force promotion policy dictates the closeout date of a decoration must be on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) and the signature date of the DÉCOR-6, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP), must be before the date of selections for a cycle in question. Should the decoration be upgraded and the applicant promoted to the grade of MSgt with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Sep 89, DPPPWB recommends the Board adjust the applicant’s retirement date to 31 Aug...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 04134
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In further support of his request the applicant provides a copy of a court report reflecting the charges against him were withdrawn. Therefore, in the interest of equity and justice, we recommend the applicants records be corrected to show that he was advanced to the grade of MSgt on the United States Air Force Retired List by reason of...
There is no evidence the decoration was submitted before the date of selections for cycle 00E7. The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPRRP states, in part, that if the Board determines the applicant should be promoted to the grade of master sergeant effective 1 October 2000, they will correct his records to reflect that he held the grade of master sergeant on his last day of active duty and was retired in the grade of master sergeant effective 1 January 2001....
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03654
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03654 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: SAF/MRBP recommends upgrading the AM, 5 OLC, to the DFC. We note DPSIDs recommendation to deny...
AF | BCMR | CY1994 | BC-1994-02702
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit U. Nor does Sergeant K------s memo address the existence of any witness statements. Exhibit P. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Sep 01.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02188
In support of his request, he provides copies of the AFCM, the AFCM Special Order G-3, the AFCM citation and a personal letter from the survivor to the Mississippi National Guard Adjutant General. The AFCM is awarded for outstanding achievement or meritorious service, or acts of courage that do not meet the requirements for award of the Airmans Medal. It has been more than 30 years and the applicant has not provided any documentation to support he felt there was an error or injustice in...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04831
The applicant concurred with the findings of the IPEB and as a result of the dual-action process; her case was referred to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for a determination of the appropriate separation action. On 1 Sep 11, the applicant retired in the grade of A1C, under the provisions of AFI 36-3203, with a reason for separation of voluntary retirement, maximum service or time in grade. The applicants grade of airman first class was accurately reflected on her...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00919
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Based on the addition of the Air Force Commendation Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster (AFCM, 1 OLC), and the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM), he would have been selected for promotion to the grade of master sergeant prior to his retirement since he missed promotion by 1 point or so. Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. However, based upon the presumption of regularity in the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04102
On 22 Jan 03, the applicant was reduced in grade from technical sergeant to staff sergeant, with a new date of rank of 21 Nov 02, as a result of an Article 15, due to government travel card (GTC) misuse. SAFPC has reviewed this application, and determined the applicant served satisfactorily in the grade of technical sergeant and should be advanced on the retired list in the grade of technical sergeant when he reaches 30 years of active service. ...