RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04831
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her pay grade at retirement be changed from airman first class 
(A1C/E-3) to technical sergeant (TSgt/E-6).

________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She is being paid as an airman first class; however, she served 
in the grade of technical sergeant for more than four years and 
her pay should reflect her highest grade held.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 Aug 91, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.  On 
1 Oct 01, 7 Dec 09, 21 Dec 09, and 12 Oct 10, she received two 
letters of counseling (LOCs); four Article 15s, and a summary 
court-martial, resulting in forfeitures of pay, confinements, 
and reductions in grade, eventually being reduced to the grade 
of airman first class.

On 26 May 10, the squadron commander notified the applicant of 
administrative discharge action for a pattern of misconduct and 
failure of the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment 
(ADAPT) program.  On 4 Jun 10, the applicant requested an 
Administrative Discharge Board (ADB) hearing.  The ADB 
recommended she be discharged for a pattern of misconduct and 
failure of the ADAPT program with service characterized as 
general (under honorable conditions) without probation and 
rehabilitation (P&R).  

Since the applicant was between 16 and 20 years of service, she 
requested a review under the Lengthy Service Program (LSP).  

Due to the applicant’s medical condition, the staff judge 
advocate (SJA), recommended dual-action processing of the case 
pursuant to AFI 36-3208, para 6-30.  On 30 Jul 10, the Informal 
Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) recommended the applicant’s 
named be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) 
with a disability rating of 60 percent, 50 percent for Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and 10 percent for breast 
cancer (which was in remission).  The applicant concurred with 
the findings of the IPEB and as a result of the dual-action 
process; her case was referred to the Secretary of the Air Force 
Personnel Council (SAFPC) for a determination of the appropriate 
separation action.  On 16 Feb 11, SAFPC notified the applicant 
that they had determined there were “insufficient mitigating 
factors to disregard the disciplinary action,” and recommended 
the previous administrative separation be executed.  This 
determination terminated all other separation actions.  In 
addition, SAFPC determined the applicant would not be advanced 
to any higher grade under the provisions of Title 10, USC, 
Section 8964.

On 1 Sep 11, the applicant retired in the grade of A1C, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-3203, with a reason for separation of 
voluntary retirement, maximum service or time in grade.  She was 
credited with 20 years and 1 month of active service.

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, stating, in part, that the 
applicant was retired in the pay grade of E-3.  Even though she 
did in fact serve in the pay grade of E-6, she is not entitled 
to receive retired pay in that grade.

DPSOR notes the applicant did in fact retire under the High 
Three Retirement Plan; however, she was reduced in grade and is 
therefore not entitled to receive pay as a technical sergeant in 
accordance with AFI 36-3203, Table 7.1, Note 7: ''Enlisted 
members demoted to a lower grade and retired in that grade will 
not be paid based on high 36-month average in the higher grades.  
Their retired pay will be based on "final basic pay" instead of 
either the high 36-month average or REDUX formulas.  When a 
regular enlisted member's active service added to retired list 
service totals 30 years, the member may be advanced (on the 
retired list) and receive retired pay in the highest grade 
satisfactorily held on active duty, as determined by the SAF or 
designee (10 USC §8964).

Additionally, Special Order Number AC - 014102, amending       
AC - 013911, states: "The Secretary of the Air Force determined 
that the above named individual will not be advanced to any 
higher grade under the provisions of section 8964, Title 10, 
United States code."

The complete AFPC/DPSOR evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 10 Dec 12 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice in regard to the 
applicant’s stated request.  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 has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice.  The applicant’s grade of airman first class 
was accurately reflected on her retirement order and is the 
grade used for retirement pay computations in accordance with 
policy and law.  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-2012-04831 in Executive Session on 16 Jul 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Oct 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 7 Nov 12, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Dec 12.




                                   Panel Chair