RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03149
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of
Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to reflect his pay grade was
E-6, instead of E-5.
2. His retired pay be recomputed based on this correction.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The error annotated on his DD Form 214 caused his retirement pay
to be that of staff sergeant (E-5), instead of technical
sergeant (E-6).
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 20 April 1967, the applicant was promoted to the grade of
technical sergeant (E-6), effective and with a date of rank of
1 May 1967.
On 30 September 1971, the applicant retired in rank of technical
sergeant (E-6) and was credited with 20 years and 26 days of
total active service. However, while his DD Form 214 correctly
reflects his rank as technical sergeant, his pay grade is
erroneously reflected as E-5, rather than E-6.
On 23 August 2012, AFPC/DPSOR notified the applicant that his DD
Form 214, would be corrected to reflect his pay grade as E-6,
instead of E-5.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
DFAS recommends denial of the applicants request related to his
retired pay, indicating there is no evidence of an error or
injustice. While the applicant contends that his DD Form 214
contained an error that effected his retired pay, a thorough
review of his records indicates that his retired pay was
correctly computed based on his retired grade of technical
sergeant (E-6) in accordance with Pay Bill 12 (retired pay is
based on fifty percent of the final active duty pay of members
completing 20 years of qualifying service for retirement),
regardless of the noted error on his DD Form 214.
A complete copy of the DFAS 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 30 October 2012 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 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 injustice regarding the
applicants retired pay. 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 (DFAS) and adopt its rationale as
the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the
victim of an error or injustice with respect to his retired pay.
We note the applicants pay grade, as reflected on his DD Form
214, erroneously reflects E-5, instead of E-6 and will be
administratively corrected by the Air Force office of primary
responsibility. Therefore, in view of the above and in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to
recommend granting any relief beyond that rendered
administratively.
________________________________________________________________
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-2012-03149 in Executive Session on 2 April 2013,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 June 2012, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, DFAS, undated.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 October 2012.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02412
His grade, as reflected on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from active Duty, be changed from technical sergeant (E-6) to master sergeant (E-7). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicants request to correct his grade, as reflected on his DD Form 214,...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02789
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). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-03149
They were told the cost for SBP would be 50 percent of her husband’s retired pay. ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Air Force states the former member and the applicant were married and that Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) records indicate the member declined SBP coverage prior to his 1 Oct 84 retirement. Novel, Member Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01745
Prior to 4 December 1987, this authority did not apply to reserve enlisted members of the Air Force who, at the time of retirement, are serving on active duty. In the applicant’s case, he retired effective 1 August 1971 and completed 30 years of service (active service plus service on the retired list) effective 21 December 1980. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03854
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). 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00097
Since he had over 19 years and 6 months of active duty service the personnel officer assured him that he would be credited with a full 20 years of service. As of 9 February 2011 the VA advised him that his disability rating had been determined to be 70 percent based on a number of factors and his VA pension would no longer be withheld from his Air Force retirement pay, however, Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) did not agree and he was advised that he did not qualify for...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 03485
Furthermore, because the failed FAs resulted in the applicant receiving a referral EPR and cancellation of his promotion, to the grade of technical sergeant, we recommend the referral EPR for the period of 29 Feb 2012 to 11 Jul 2012 be declared void and removed from his records and that his promotion to the grade of technical sergeant be reinstated with a date of rank and effective date of 1 Sep 2012. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 19 Sep 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 29...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04435
His date of separation be adjusted to reflect he completed twenty years of total active duty. The applicant concurred with the IPEB findings and recommendation and waived his right to a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB). The preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the disability processing or at the time of separation.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05084
AC-000059, dated 5 Oct 94, provided by the applicant, effective 15 Jan 05, he was advanced to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) on the Air Force retired list by reason of completing a total of 30 years of active service plus service on the Air Force retired list on 14 Jan 05. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: DFAS...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 93-00230 INDEX NUMBER: 128.00;133.03; 129.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His retired pay be computed based on the years of service for basic pay versus years of active service for retirement, and that his retired grade be changed from airman first class to technical sergeant. ...