RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05718
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His debt from receiving overpayment of Basic Allowance of
Housing (BAH) be reversed.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His demotion paperwork was signed on 8 Aug 12; however, it was
not updated until 18 Sep 12 and his rank was reflected in the
Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) incorrectly until Oct
12. He would like the overpayment debt to be reversed due to
the fact that it took over two months before it was updated in
MilPDS. He should not be punished because it took personnel a
long time to update the system.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of the
Demotion Action Memorandum, a copy of a special order, a
printout of the applicants debt, and copies of his Leave and
Earning Statements.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
_
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the Regular
Air Force in the grade of senior airman.
According to the AFPC/DPSOE advisory opinion, the applicant was
arrested for driving under the influence on 5 Feb 12. On 5 Jun
12, the applicant was notified that he was being
administratively demoted for failure to fulfill NCO
responsibilities. On 11 Jun 12, the Area Defense Counsel
requested a delay in responding and it was approved. The
commander denied the applicants request not to demote him; the
applicant was notified of this action on 25 Jun 12. On 3 Aug
12, the Staff Judge Advocate provided a legal review and
determined there were no errors or irregularities affecting the
legal sufficiency of the demotion action. Effective 8 Aug 12,
the applicant was demoted to the rank of senior airman with a
new date of rank (DOR) of 8 Aug 12. The MilPDS was updated on
11 Oct 12.
DPSOE contacted the servicing Military Personnel Squadron (MPS)
to find out why the system was not updated until three weeks
after the demotion order was published. The MPS responded by
stating the updates were made when the package was received.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of
the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C and D.
________________________________________________________________
_
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE does not provide a recommendation. They do not have
the authority to decide pay issues. However, they note the
applicant was notified by his commander of the demotion to
senior airman and that the effective date would be 8 Aug 12
regardless of when the update was made in MilPDS.
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
DFAS-IN recommends denial. The applicant was duly notified of
the demotion and was given the opportunity to plead his case.
There was no reason for the applicant not to be prepared for the
reduction in his pay whether it was posted in August or October.
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 18 Apr 13 for review and comment within 30 days.
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 Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Indianapolis
(DFAS-IN), and adopt their 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 AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-05718 in Executive Session on 12 Sep 13, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Nov 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 30 Jan 13.
Exhibit D. Letter, DFAS-IN, undated.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Apr 13.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04975
DPSOE states that it is not clear which record the applicant wants corrected as the MilPDS reflects the following grade history: Grade DOR Effective Date AB 13 Apr 04 13 Apr 04 A1C 28 May 04 26 Aug 04 SrA 28 Sep 06 28 Sep 06 A1C 3 Dec 07 3 Dec 07 SrA 1 Apr 08 1 Apr 08 AB 7 Nov 08 7 Nov 08 DPSOE states that no further corrections are required as MilPDS reflects the applicant held the grade of senior airman. The second part, in the amount of $2,235.66 is due to overpayment of military pay...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01744
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial as it relates to an error or injustice occurring as a result of the applicants demotion action. In this case, the applicant indicated his administrative demotion action on 13 August 2010 was due to his failure to keep fit. The applicants fitness...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01346
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01346 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records be rescored for promotion to master sergeant (Cycle 13E7) with the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), dated 18 February 2010. The first time the decoration would have been used in the promotion process was cycle 12E7 to master sergeant. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01519
He be provided the E-5 back-pay from the date of his 15 May 13 demotion date. The narrative reason for his retirement was Temporary Early Retirement Authority. 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 and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial due to lack of supporting evidence (i.e. medical validation, commander's invalidation...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-02943
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS The applicant’s Coast Guard Achievement medal is on file in his SNCO Selection Record. 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.
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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 01887
The applicants commander initiated an AF Form 3538E, Enlisted Retention Recommendation, and did not recommend he be retained on active duty. The applicants demotion action was initiated due to his DUI with a blood alcohol level of 0.18. As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02073
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02073 INDEX CODE: 110.03 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 Jan 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Extended Active Duty (EAD) date be changed from 25 Oct 05 to 11 Aug 05 to prevent a break in service, restore her promotion line number, and clear a debt for back pay and...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04665
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04665 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be retroactively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt, E-5) effective Jul 13. AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, paragraph 1.11, states airmen selected for promotion to the grade of SSgt must complete in-residence...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04179
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of his request to have his FA dated 20 Jun 12, removed from AFFMS indicating the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim. The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants request to remove the demotion action and restore his rank to SrA. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 13 Jun 14.