RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04444 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be advanced to the grade of major. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was promoted to major in December 2004, just 30 days before 
his retirement date. As he understands, upon reaching 30 years 
of Total Federal Military Service, he is eligible to apply for 
an advancement order to update his records to reflect his 
promotion to major. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant retired from the Air Force in the grade of captain 
on 1 January 2005. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. On 9 July 2004, the applicant was 
approved for retirement with an effective date of 1 January 
2005. He was promoted to “captain” on 1 December 2004. 

 

Title 10 USC 1370(a)(1) outlines time-in-grade (TIG) 
requirements for establishing a members retired grade. It 
states unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some 
other provision of law, a commissioned officer of the Army, 
Navy, Air Force or Marine Corps who retires under any provision 
of law other than chapter 61 or chapter 1223 of this title 
“shall, except as provided in paragraph 2, be retired in the 
highest grade in which he served on active duty satisfactorily, 
as determined by the Secretary of the military department 
concerned, for not less than six months.” 

 


Title 10 USC 1370(b) speaks to the requirement for members to be 
retired in a lower grade if the TIG requirement is not met: 
Retirement in the next lower grade - An officer whose length of 
service in the highest grade held while on active duty does not 
meet the service in grade requirements specified shall be 
retired in the next lowered grade in which he served on active 
duty satisfactorily, as determined by the Secretary of the 
military department concerned, for not less than six months. 

 

The applicant had one month time-in-grade at the time of his 
retirement. He was retired under 10 USC Chapter 867, Retirement 
for Length of Service. As such, he did not meet the TIG 
requirements for retirement in the highest held grade. He was 
correctly retired in the grade of captain. 

 

Title 10 USC 8964, Higher grade after 30 years of service; 
warrant officers and enlisted members, allows members to be 
advanced to the highest grade satisfactorily held on active duty 
when their active duty time plus their time on the retired list 
equals 30 years. This section applies to warrant officers of 
the Air Force, enlisted members of the Regular Air Force and 
Reserve enlisted members of the Air Force who, at the time of 
retirement, were serving on active duty or in the case of the 
Air National Guard, on full-time duty. Since the applicant was 
a commissioned officer at the time of retirement, this law is 
not applicable. 

 

There is no legal basis for grade advancement under 10 USC 8964. 

 

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

DFAS recommends denial. In accordance with Title 10 USC 
1370(a)(1), a commissioned officer, other than a commissioned 
warrant officer, of the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marine Corps 
who retires under any provisions of law other than Chapter 61 or 
Chapter 1223 of this title “shall be retired in the highest 
grade in which served on active duty satisfactorily, as 
determined by the Secretary of the military department 
concerned, for not less than six months.” The applicant was 
promoted to major 30 days prior to his retirement; therefore, he 
was not eligible to retire at the rank of major. 

 

The complete DFAS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 6 April 2013 for review and comment within 30 days. 
As of this date, this office has received no response 
(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 error or injustice. After 
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and the applicant’s 
complete submission, we are not persuaded that he is entitled to 
the relief he seeks. His contentions are duly noted; however, 
he has not provided persuasive evidence to override the 
rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility (OPR). Therefore, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the OPRs and adopt their rationale as the 
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the 
victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of persuasive 
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 an 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 BC-2012-04444 in 
Executive Session on 29 May 2013, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-04444 was considered: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Sep 12, w/atchs. 

Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Record. 

Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPSOR, dated 26 Mar 13. 

Exhibit D. Letter, DFAS, dated 4 Apr 13. 

Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Apr 13. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair