RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03854
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Retired pay grade be changed to the grade of Technical
Sergeant (TSgt/E-6).
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He retired as a technical sergeant; however, the Defense
Accounting and Finance Service (DFAS) insists on paying him as a
staff sergeant (SSgt/E-5). He had a reduction in rank that was
without prejudice and subsequently retired from the Reserve
component. He has tried to have his retirement pay grade
corrected; however, he has been unsuccessful. The Air Reserve
Personnel Center (ARPC) and the Air National Guard (ANG) believe
that his pay grade should be corrected.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal
statement; a copy of Special Order (SO) No. AA-0088, dated
23 Nov 09; Amendment SO No. AA-0091, dated 1 Dec 09; a copy of
his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
duty, issued in conjunction with his 1 Jan 10 retirement, and
other supporting documents.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Based on the available records, as provided by the applicant,
the applicant served as an Active Guard Reservist (AGR).
He was relieved from active duty, on 31 Dec 09, under the
provisions of AFI 36-3203, with a reason for separation of
voluntary retirement: sufficient service for retirement, in the
retired grade of staff sergeant. He was credited with 20 years
and 13 days of active service for retirement. He was retired
from active duty, effective 1 Jan 10.
The Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) amended Special Order
No. AA-091 changing the applicants Retired Pay Grade to
technical sergeant.
________________________________________________________________
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
DFAS-RPB-TQAL-CL recommends denial. The applicants record
reveals that he initially entered the service on 19 Jan 83.
Since he entered service, after 8 Sep 80, he is subject to the
High 36 pay computation method. The applicant had to accept a
demotion from TSgt to SSgt in 2005; the highest rates of basic
pay received by the applicant were in the grade of staff
sergeant and were utilized in his retired pay computation.
There is no provision under Title 10 United States Code (USC)
1407 to recompute the high average base.
The complete DFAS-RPB-TQAL-CL evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 17 Dec 10 for review and comment within 30 days.
As of this date, no response has been received by this office
(Exhibit D).
________________________________________________________________
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. 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 Defense Finance and Accounting Service and adopt its
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has
not been the victim of an error or injustice. In addition, we
note, the applicants retirement order was amended to reflect
his pay grade at the time of retirement, in accordance with
governing law and policies. Since the applicant joined the
service after 7 Sep 80, his military retirement pay is computed
based on Title 10 USC 1407. This does not affect a members
grade at retirement, only the law and policy which governs a
members retirement pay computation. Therefore, in the absence
of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material 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-2010-03854 in Executive Session on 7 July 2011, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Oct 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, DFAS-RPB-TQAL/CL, dated 5 Nov 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Dec 10.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00561
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00561 INDEX CODE: 112.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 Aug 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he has 21 years, 7 months, and 8 days of total active service, rather than 19 years and 20 days. He enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 Jun 58 for a...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02368
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02368 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receives Concurrent Retirement and Disability Pay (CRDP). Per ARPC/DPPR memorandum dated 20 Apr 04, the applicant completed the required years of service under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 1552 and Air Force Instruction, 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, to reflect that on 29 Jul 03,...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00061
Since he has been reinstated to active duty as though he never retired, he should not have been required to pay SBP premiums as an active duty member. 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, we find no evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2007-03726
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are at Exhibits B and H. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: DFAS-RPB-TQAL/CL indicates that in order to make an election into the SBP open season, a payment of a buy in premium was required to cover the period of time...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01370
A complete copy of the DFAS-RPB-TQAL/CL evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPD recommended denial indicating the applicant’s DD Form 214 not be amended or changed reflect that she was medically retired on a later date since she was permanently retired after her DD Form 214 was issued. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | bc-2003-01127
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: DFAS-RPB-TQAL/CL recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant was credited with continuous service from 6 November 1967 to 1 March 1992. Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, the office of primary responsibility has reviewed his service total and determined that he has been credited with continuous service from the date he began active duty (6 November 1967)...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03259
Title 10 USC, Section 1407(f)(2)(B), states if an enlisted member was at any time reduced in grade as the result of a court-martial sentence, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative action, unless the member was subsequently promoted to a higher enlisted grade, the computation of retired pay is determined under Title 10 USC, Section 1406, Retired pay base for members who first became members before September 1980: final basic pay. The applicant further contends the demotion was invalid...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 00776
Title 10 USC, Section 1174h requires SSB payments must be recouped from any future military retired pay by withholding a percentage of the retired pay until the gross amount is collected. On 25 November 2008, the applicant received notification from DFAS that her SSB would begin to be recouped from her monthly retired pay in the amount of $1,703.53 beginning with her pay check dated, 2 February 2009. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;...
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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-03742
On 1 March 2001, an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) determined he was unfit and recommended his placement on TDRL status with 30% disability. The DFAS evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant summarized the information contained in the applicant’s personnel and medical records and is of the opinion that no change in the records is warranted. We are not persuaded by the evidence presented that the applicant’s discharge from the Air Force because of physical...