Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02789
Original file (BC-2012-02789.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-02789
		
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: YES



_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, be corrected to reflect her grade as technical sergeant 
(E-6), rather than staff sergeant (E-5).

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In accordance with AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for 
Retention, Retirement, And Separation, her pay grade should be 
E-6 because she was selected to be promoted before the Medical 
Evaluation Board (MEB) commenced.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate she enlisted 
in the Regular Air Force on 24 Jun 03.

On 28 May 12, the applicant was released from active duty in the 
grade of staff sergeant (E-5) and permanently retired by reason 
of physical disability in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), 
effective 29 May 12, with an honorable service characterization.  
She was credited with 8 years, 11 months, and 5 days of active 
service.

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:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice.  The applicant was selected for promotion 
to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) and she would have been 
promoted on 1 Apr 12; however, on 8 Mar 12, the Secretary of the 
Air Force found her unfit for contined service and directed she 
be permanently retired.  While this rendered her ineligible for 
promotion, she was retired in the projected higher grade of 
technical sergeant in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 1372.  However, 
the applicant’s DD 214 correctly reflects the grade of staff 
sergeant which is the highest grade she held on the date of 
separation and an amendment or change is not authorized and 
would be in violation of Air Force Instructions.

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

_____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 7 Aug 12 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D).  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 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 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, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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(s) 
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 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-2012-02789 in Executive Session on 29 Jan 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated, 23 Jun 12.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 12 Jul 12.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Aug 12.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00583

    Original file (BC-2011-00583.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00583 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect she was retired in the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt), rather than staff sergeant (SSgt). ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01852

    Original file (BC-2011-01852.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPD recommends denial. The complete DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-01852 in Executive Session on 1 November 2011 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01328

    Original file (BC-2004-01328.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01328 INDEX CODES: 121.02, 131.09 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records be corrected to reflect she was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) effective 1 Mar 99; and, she receive back pay from 1 Mar 99 until the date her name was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-03123

    Original file (BC-2005-03123.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03123 INDEX CODE: 108.04 COUNSEL: DAV HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 16 Apr 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be placed on the permanent disability retired list effective 17 Sep 05. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02761

    Original file (BC-2003-02761.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on a grade determination by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC), it was determined that she had served satisfactorily in the highest grade held, staff sergeant. Disability processing records reveal the applicant underwent both a medical and physical evaluation board which ultimately discharged her with entitlement to severance pay with a 10 percent disability rating. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02840

    Original file (BC-2006-02840.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The commander stated he contacted her former commander to determine the specifics of her decoration and fully supports supplemental promotion consideration. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends approval of the applicant’s request to have her initiation date of the AFCM coincide with her PCS in Aug 05 (Exhibit C). Therefore we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03741

    Original file (BC 2013 03741.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. Prior to the amendment to the law, members were retired in the grade they held on their date of separation. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04344

    Original file (BC-2011-04344.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    According to her MPF, members separated under the FY10/11 FMP received between $20,000 and $22,000 in separation pay. The applicant contends that she should have been provided separation pay as she was separated under the provisionsof the FY10/11 Force Management Program (FY10/11FMP); however, after a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we are not convinced she was entitled toseparation pay. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01786

    Original file (BC-2002-01786.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-01786 INDEX CODES: 108.00, 131.09 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that he was medically retired in the grade of technical sergeant, the highest grade he held in the Air Force, with a disability rating of 75 percent. Under the Air Force system (Title...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01841

    Original file (BC-2012-01841.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    For these acts, the applicant was punished by a reduction in grade to staff sergeant, with a date of rank of 7 Mar 07, and a reprimand. The applicant was rendered a referral EPR for the period 15 Aug 06 through 15 Mar 06 (sic), which included the following statements: “During this period member indecently assaulted a female Airman for which he received an Article 15/demotion,” and “Vast potential—demonstrated poor judgment unbecoming of an Air Force NCO—consider for promotion.” On 18 Mar...