RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02831
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Items 4a and 4b of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect his grade as
SSgt, E-5 respectively.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
According to a letter he received from the Secretary of the Air
Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) dated 23 January 2012, he should
have been discharged in the grade of Staff Sergeant instead of
Senior Airman.
The applicants complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
1. According to documents extracted from the Automated Records
Management System (ARMS) the applicant is a former member of the
Regular Air Force who was progressively promoted to the grade of
Staff Sergeant, E-5.
2. The applicant was simultaneously the subject of an
involuntary discharge under AFI 36-3208, Administrative
Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.26.6, unsatisfactory
performance, as well as a medical discharge due to intertarsal
neuroma of his right foot.
3. As part of the administrative actions, the applicant was
demoted to the grade of Senior Airman, effective 8 April 2011,
for failing to attain fitness standards in accordance with AFI
36-2502, Airmen Promotion and Demotion Programs, para 6.3.5
after he failed to attain overall passing composite scores on
10 Apr 09, 9 Dec 10, and 9 Mar 11.
4. SAFPC convened a Board to determine the appropriate reason
for the applicants discharge and the characterization of his
military service. On 23 January 2012, the Board acknowledged by
letter that there appeared to be a significant causal
relationship for the majority of the applicants disciplinary
difficulties based upon the timing of the administrative actions
in relation to his medical condition. The Board determined the
applicant should be discharged with severance pay with a
disability rating of 10 percent. The Board also determined that
the applicant did serve satisfactorily in the higher grade of
Staff Sergeant within the meaning of Section 1212, Disability
Pay, of Title 10, United States Code, and that he should be
discharged in the grade of Staff Sergeant. The applicant was
advised of his right to pursue further appeal through
application to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military
Records (AFBCMR) should he find reason that brings into question
the decision of the Board.
5. On 28 March 2012 the applicant was medically discharged in
the grade of Senior Airman, E-4, with severance pay with a
disability rating of 10 percent in accordance with Department of
Defense guidance for applying the Veterans Administration
Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) guidelines. He was
credited with serving 8 years, 11 months and 14 days of active
duty service.
On 23 August 2012, AFPC/DPSOE notified the applicant by letter
(Exhibit D) that although SAFPC determined that he served
satisfactorily in the grade of Staff Sergeant, it was for
disability purposes only. The DD Form 214 issued in conjunction
with his 28 March 2012 separation reflected the rank he held at
the time of discharge and therefore was correct.
_______________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPD recommends denial. DPPD states that the applicants
discharge order AF-039246, issued 2 February 2012, indicates he
was entitled to disability severance pay in the grade of Staff
Sergeant. The DD Form 214 correctly reflects the grade of
Senior Airman which was the active duty grade the applicant was
wearing on the date of his separation.
The complete 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 11 September 2012 for review and comment within 30
days (Exhibit E). To date, this office has not received a
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 that 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.
________________________________________________________________
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 this application
in Executive Session on 26 March 2013, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2012-02831:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 June 2012, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 19 July 2012.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 23 August 2012.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 September 2012.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03646
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: According to a letter from the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF), she served satisfactorily in the higher grade of staff sergeant (E-5), in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 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 Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02761
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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 00733
He was taken to a DVA Regional hospital on 28 March 2013 and was diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome. On 22 March 2013, the applicant was honorably separated from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial of the applicants request for reinstatement to active duty and to be medically discharged at the highest grade held.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02085
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02085 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03859
On 4 November 2003, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the demotion action to senior airman with an effective date of rank of 30 October 2003. On 8 January 2004, Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) determined the applicant would be retired in the grade of senior airman by virtue of not serving satisfactorily in the higher grade of technical sergeant. He is requesting that his rank of technical sergeant be restored.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01797
On 20 Feb 14, according to information provided by the applicant, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) directed the removal of two of his FA failures ( and ) from the applicants AFFMS record. Although two of the six FA failures have been removed by the FAAB, the applicant does not have the support/approval of his commander, or the demotion authority, to restore his rank to Technical Sergeant (E-6). Therefore, the commander is within his authority to demote the applicant for the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-00049
The applicant’s other conditions were not separately unfitting at the time of evaluation in the disability evaluation system and did not warrant separate ratings. The BCMR Medical Consultant states the fact the applicant has been granted certain service connected disability rating from the DVA does not entitle him to Air Force disability compensation or a change in existing military disability ratings. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05619
Since his 21 April 2010 FA was removed from his record, which was the basis for his demotion action, his rank should be restored. There is no demotion action or demotion order in his personnel records. The applicant contends that his former grade should be restored because his demotion was based upon four consecutive fitness assessment (FA) failures, but one of the four failures was later declared void and removed from his records.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02515
In paragraph 6.1.6, it states if the demotion authority restores the airman's original grade following the demotion, he or she must do so between three and six months after the effective date of the demotion. Based on the available evidence, which includes statements from the applicant's current commander and first sergeant, medical records, FA history since 2004, and the demotion action file; the demotion action was procedurally correct and there is no evidence that the applicant's...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00816
Members who are retired on or after 23 September 1996 may be retired in the regular or reserve grade to which they had been selected and would have been promoted had it not been for the physical disability for which they were retired. The DD Form 214 reflects the active duty grade the member held at the time of separation. ________________________________________________________________ 2 Panel Chair Member Member The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number...