RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03262
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His retired pay grade of technical sergeant (E-6/TSgt) be
changed to the grade of master sergeant (MSgt/E-7).
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His Article 15 punishment consisting of a reduction to the grade
of TSgt was too severe in comparison to the punishment received
by others.
Additionally, his medical condition at the time prevented him
from effectively defending himself due to high levels of pain
medication.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal
statement, copies of a letter of support from his former Deputy
Adjutant General, former supervisor and various other documents.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 5 Mar 09, the applicant, a member of the Air National Guard
(ANG), received an Article 15, on or about 18 May 7 Jul 08,
for wrongfully making purchases on his government travel card
for other than travel. His punishment consisted of a reduction
to grade of TSgt with a Date of Rank (DOR) of 5 Mar 09.
On 23 Feb 10, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council
conducted a grade determination and found the applicant did not
serve satisfactorily in the higher grade of MSgt within the
meaning of Title 10 Section 1372; therefore, he was retired in
the grade of TSgt. However, they did find the applicant did
serve satisfactorily in the higher grade of MSgt within the
meaning of Title 10, Section 8964. As such, when his total
service time after retirement reaches 30 years he will be
advance to the higher grade of MSgt.
On 28 May 10, the applicant was relieved from active duty and
transferred to the USAF Reserve Retired List awaiting pay at
age 60. He was retired in the grade of TSgt, with a compensable
disability rating of 20 percent, with a narrative reason for
separation of retirement disability, permanent. He was credited
with 20 years, 8 months, and 16 days for active service for
retirement.
________________________________________________________________
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, based on the evidence of record and the
information provided in support of his appeal, to include the
letter from the Wyoming Deputy Adjutant General-Air, the
applicant has not provided evidence that substantiates that his
grade at the time of separation should be disturbed. In this
respect, we note the applicant was provided a grade
determination by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel
Council (SAFPC), which determined that he had not served
satisfactorily in a grade higher than TSgt. In view of the
above and 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-2012-03262 in Executive Session on 18 Apr 13, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-03262 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Jul 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 04134
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In further support of his request the applicant provides a copy of a court report reflecting the charges against him were withdrawn. Therefore, in the interest of equity and justice, we recommend the applicants records be corrected to show that he was advanced to the grade of MSgt on the United States Air Force Retired List by reason of...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04986
On 31 Aug 13, the applicant was relieved from active duty and retired from the Air Force with a reason for separation of voluntary retirement: maximum service or time in grade; in the grade of TSgt. §l407(f)(3), Special Rule for Enlisted Members, applies and should authorize him a higher amount of retirement pay. A review of the applicant's record indicates that as of the retirement date, 1 Aug 13 [sic], he was not promoted to a higher grade following his reduction in 2013, and was retired...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02310
On 6 Jan 10, he was driving when he dropped his cell phone. The complete DPSOE 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 8 Sep 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04039
________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PP recommends approval of the applicant's request to have her retired grade adjusted to MSgt rather than TSgt. There was no evidence of misconduct in the 3 years, 8 months the applicant held the higher grade of MSgt, and her demotion to the grade of TSgt was voluntary based on her reassignment to a lower graded position. The complete SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01841
For these acts, the applicant was punished by a reduction in grade to staff sergeant, with a date of rank of 7 Mar 07, and a reprimand. The applicant was rendered a referral EPR for the period 15 Aug 06 through 15 Mar 06 (sic), which included the following statements: During this period member indecently assaulted a female Airman for which he received an Article 15/demotion, and Vast potentialdemonstrated poor judgment unbecoming of an Air Force NCOconsider for promotion. On 18 Mar...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-01975
On 16 October 1995, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to file the applicant’s Article 15 in his Senior Non- Commissioned Officer (SNCO) Selection Record. The applicant applied for retirement and a highest grade held determination was completed by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council. DPSOR states the applicant did not submit any evidence or identify an error or injustice in the grade determination process.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01118
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to his nonjudicial punishment, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM reviewed this application and recommends denial. DPPPWB states that the applicant’s punishment consisted of a reduction from the grade of MSgt (E-7) to TSgt (E-6) with a new date of...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04781
On 11 Apr 14, Special Order AC 100052, rescinded Special Order AC-014635 to adjust the applicants service dates, retired grade and highest grade held on active duty. Effective 1 Feb 93, the applicant was retired in the grade of SSgt and credited with 23 years, 11 months and 6 days of active duty. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice noting the Secretary Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) previously considered the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02668
This TIG error prevented him from testing for MSgt in 2011 and 2012, and denied him consideration for promotion on both the FY11 and FY12 Master Sergeant Selection Boards. After a thorough review of his RegAF and ANG records, it is determined the applicant did not hold the rank of TSgt while serving in the RegAF and therefore, this DOR is equal to the date of his enlistment. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03920
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/DPM recommended denial noting the applicant was in a retraining status at the time of her promotion to TSgt and did not have a three- skill level in the promotion AFSC as required by the governing Air Force Instruction. AFRC/DPM indicated that as a result of the applicant’s DOR being changed to 1 Mar 02, she did not meet the two- year minimum time in grade requirement for promotion to the grade...