RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00612 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His records be corrected to reflect: 

 

1. His retirement rank as Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt) rather 
than Master Sergeant (MSgt) effective 1 Jun 02. 

 

2. He receive the difference in retirement pay between MSgt and 
CMSgt from 1 Jun 02 until the date of promotion to CMSgt. 

 

3. He receive retirement pay in the rank of CMSgt from the date 
of promotion. 

 

4. He receive MSgt active duty pay and leave from 2000 through 
2002. 

 

5. He receive payment for 89 days of accrued leave. 

 

6. He receive a military retirement ceremony as a CMSgt and any 
other benefits he would have been entitled to as a CMSgt. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He should be promoted to CMSgt due to - not having the 
opportunity to be considered for promotion based on - being 
unjustly separated in December 2000. He further believes he 
should receive compensation based on the Air Force Board for 
Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) action in 2003 to 
overturn his wrongful discharge. 

 

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 18 Mar 82, the applicant contracted his initial enlistment in 
the Regular Air Force. He served as a- Formal Training 
Instructor, Security Forces. 

 


In November 2000, the applicant’s commander preferred eight 
court-martial charges against him for violating several articles 
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He submitted 
a request to be discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial and 
waived his right to request lengthy service probation 
consideration. The convening authority approved his request and 
he was discharged on 14 Dec 00 with an under other than honorable 
conditions (UOTHC) discharge in the grade of technical sergeant 
(TSgt). 

 

In August 2002, the applicant submitted an application to the 
AFBCMR requesting his UOTHC discharge be reconsidered based on 
lengthy service probation. On 21 Apr 03, the AFBCMR approved his 
request and directed that his records be corrected to reflect 
that he was not discharged on 14 Dec 00, but on that date he was 
continued on active duty, promoted to MSgt on 30 May 02, 
discharged under honorable conditions on 31 May 02, and retired 
on 1 Jun 02 for length of service in the grade of MSgt. He was 
credited with 20 years, 1 month, and 9 days of military service. 

 

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 Exhibits C and D. 
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this 
Record of Proceedings 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial noting current Air Force policy does 
not allow automatic promotion. The applicant’s original date of 
rank (DOR) to MSgt was 1 May 96. The applicant was considered 
and twice nonselected for promotion to MSgt. However, based on 
his AFBCMR directed promotion to MSgt he would not have been 
eligible for promotion consideration to SMSgt until 2004; and 
since he was no longer on active duty he was not eligible for 
promotion consideration. In addition, the governing Air Force 
Instruction (AFI) 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, 
Table 2.1 states airmen must serve on active duty in enlisted 
status as of the promotion eligibility cutoff dated (PECD), 
serving continuous active duty until the effective date of 
promotion. Furthermore, the applicant does not have all the 
required weighted factors used to apply the mechanics of the 
selection process and supplemental promotion consideration. 

 

A complete copy of AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DSPOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request for 
retirement in a higher grade and a retirement ceremony noting 
that Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 8961(b) states 
that unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some other 
provision of law, a Regular or Reserve of the Air Force who 
retires other than for physical disability retires in the regular 


or reserve grade that he holds on the date of retirement. 
Additionally, AFI 36-3203, Service Retirements, Chapter 6, Recognition on Retirement, a member’s commander is responsible to 
conduct a retirement ceremony. Since the applicant is retired he 
is not afforded a retirement ceremony because he has no unit 
commander to conduct a ceremony. Also, the Defense Finance and 
Accounting Service (DFAS) compensated the applicant for active 
duty pay and allowances from 8 Sep 00 to 31 May 02 in the grade 
of MSgt and he receives 50.208 percent of his High-36 average 
basic pay as his retired pay plan. Also, the applicant does not 
have integral weighted factors needed to aid in the NCO promotion 
selection process and supplemental promotion consideration 
process. 

 

A complete copy of AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant believes the powers to be are not looking at the 
full picture and are only trying to base the denial decision on 
the fact that he asked for a specific rank at a specific time. He 
is asking for the rank of E-9 and all his other entitlements 
based on the fact that he was wrongfully terminated and denied 
future rank. The letter of the law is being used instead of the 
spirit of the law. 

 

He was wrongfully terminated and just like in the civilian world 
when that happens there are repercussions. He would like an open 
honest estimation that had he not been wrongfully discharged, 
what is the estimated timeline of when he could have possibly 
made his rank over those next 12 years and then to be paid back 
monetarily what he would have made and, receive a retirement date 
of 2012 as an E-9. He needs a break down from 1999-2012 (the 
years he had left to reach high year tenure (HYT) as E-9) of when 
is the earliest he could have potentially made each rank. He 
should then be reimbursed monetarily for pay that he would have 
received had he not been discharged. He also requests that after 
the above is figured out, that his retirement pay is reflective 
of the rank that it is decided he could have made. He further 
requests the 89 days accrued leave pay that was taken. This is 
not a case of quoting 10 USC 8961(b) or any other legal jargon 
such as statute of limitations etc. This is a case where the Air 
Force admitted in writing to making a mistake and a hasty 
wrongful discharge and he believes he should be compensated 
accordingly, fairly and reasonably. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


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. After a 
thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s 
complete submission, including his response to the Air Force 
evaluations, we are not convinced the applicant should be 
afforded additional relief beyond that previously provided by the 
Board. While he contends he should be provided additional relief 
because his discharge deprived him of further opportunities to 
compete for promotion, other than his own assertions, he has 
provided no evidence that were it not for his UOTHC discharge in 
2000, he would have been promoted beyond the grade of master 
sergeant. Furthermore, while the Board previously determined the 
applicant’s UOTHC discharge and permanent loss of his master 
sergeant grade and forfeiture of retirement benefits represented 
an unduly severe lifelong penalty, the evidence presented was not 
sufficient to conclude the applicant should have been absolved of 
his misconduct. Therefore, in view of this, we find the 
applicant’s assertions speculative, and speculation is not a 
sufficient basis to recommend granting relief. As for his 
request related to the payment of leave due to him from the 
previous correction of his records, the applicant is reminded the 
burden of proof of an error or injustice rests with the applicant 
and he has provided no evidence to indicate that he did not 
receive the appropriate pay and allowances due to him from the 
previous corrections to his records. 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-2011-00612 in Executive Session on 17 Nov 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Vice Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Jan 11. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 26 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 16 May 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, undated. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Vice Chair