AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1995-02187
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
IN THE MATTER OF:
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect he retired in the grade of
technical sergeant (TSgt) rather than staff sergeant (SSgt).
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His highest grade held was TSgt. His records reflect he only held
the grade of SSgt. He previously applied for correction of
records 10 years ago after his retirement; however, his request
was denied because his record reflected no promotion to TSgt. He
was told that his retired pay would reflect his highest pay grade
held after 10 years.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his
retirement special order, promotion order and notification of
promotion testing letter.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 20 January 1965, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air
Force. He was progressively promoted to the rank of TSgt having
assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 August
1980.
On 18 March 1983, the applicant received an Article 15 and his
punishment consisted of a reduction in rank from TSgt to SSgt
with a new date of rank (DOR) of 18 March 1983.
On 1 February 1985, the applicant was retired in the grade of
SSgt after serving 20 years and 11 days.
On 27 February 1996, the Air Force Board for Correction of
Military Records (AFBCMR) considered and denied the applicant’s
request for advancement to the grade of TSgt (Exhibit B).
On 16 May 2011, AFPC/DPSOR informed the applicant that because he
held the grade of SSgt on the date of his retirement, his records
correctly reflects his retired grade of SSgt. DPSOR forwarded
the applicant’s case to the SECAF for a decision as to whether
the AF would advance him to a higher grade than SSgt IAW Title
10, USC, section 8964. On 4 October 1995, the Secretary of the
Air Force Personnel Counsel (SAFPC) determined the applicant
would not be advanced to the higher grade of TSgt when his time
on active duty and his time on the retired list totals 30 years
under the provisions of Title 10, USC, section 8964. Although
the previous advisory from DPSOR erroneously stated there was no
evidence the applicant had been a TSgt, the AFBCMR did review the
promotion order (SO A-39) while making their final determination
(Exhibit C).
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of
the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSOE states the applicant is not challenging the
issuance of the Article 15 or subsequent reduction in grade nor
did he provide any supporting evidence to suggest the Article 15
was unjust.
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 27 May 2011, a complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30
days. However, as of this date, this office has received no
response (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 an error or an injustice. We took
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and the
recommendation of the Air Force and adopt its rationale as the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the
victim of an error or an injustice. The applicant was demoted
2
from TSgt to SSgt due to misconduct. As a result, the applicant
was retired in the grade of SSgt in accordance with 10 USC 8961,
which states a servicemember will be retired in the grade held on
the date of retirement. It appears that at the time of his
retirement he was not considered for a highest-grade
determination. However, on 4 October 1995, SAFPC determined the
applicant would not be advanced to the grade of TSgt on the
retired list when his active service plus his service on the
retired list totals 30 years. The applicant has not submitted
persuasive evidence that he should have been retired in the
higher grade of TSgt. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to
the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief
sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
1995-02187 in Executive Session on 12 July 2011, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Oct 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 11 Apr 11, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 May 11.
Panel Chair
Panel Chair
Member
Member
3
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00197
The applicant has not provided documentation from his unit commander or primary care manager for invalidating the FA, nor did he provide the specific FA failure. The applicant held the grade of SSgt on the date of his retirement; therefore, his record correctly reflects his retired grade as SSgt. On 11 Dec 13, the Secretary of the Air Force found the applicant served satisfactorily in the grade of TSgt and ordered his advancement to the grade of TSgt when his time on active duty and his...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01771
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01771 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Between the date of his reduction to the grade of Amn (27 Jan 04) and his last day on active duty (31 Dec 04), the applicant held no higher grade than Amn. Based on the applicants date of rank (DOR) to SSgt during cycle 94A5, he was...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00643
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force which is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. On 16 Feb 12, the applicant initiated a request for retirement. The demotion action following his second alcohol-related offense was warranted and he...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00643
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force which is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. On 16 Feb 12, the applicant initiated a request for retirement. The demotion action following his second alcohol-related offense was warranted and he...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05056
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05056 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. Each retired member of the Air Force is entitled to be advanced on the retired list to the highest grade in which they served on active duty satisfactorily as determined by...
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 | 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2003-03941
In addition, they found the following; 1) no convening authority may apply the conditions on suspension to the confinement element of the adjudged sentence; 2) the period of suspension of the punitive discharge and reduction in grade, during which the applicant was required to participate satisfactorily in an acceptable sex offender FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 rehabilitation program, was limited to five years; 3) involuntary appellate leave was to be applied to the...
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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 04781
On 11 Apr 14, Special Order AC 100052, rescinded Special Order AC-014635 to adjust the applicants service dates, retired grade and highest grade held on active duty. Effective 1 Feb 93, the applicant was retired in the grade of SSgt and credited with 23 years, 11 months and 6 days of active duty. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice noting the Secretary Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) previously considered the...