RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03741

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES 


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect that he retired in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) rather than staff sergeant (E-5).  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was notified of his selection for promotion to technical sergeant (E-6) before being placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL).  Therefore, he should have been promoted during the months prior to his placement on the Permanent Disability Retired List (PDRL) and not retire in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5).  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate that he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 Nov 87.  

According to the weighted airman promotion system score notice provided by the applicant, he was tentatively selected for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) during the 92A6 promotion cycle.  According to AFPC/DPSOE, his promotion would have incremented on 1 Jun 92.

On 13 Nov 91, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened to evaluate the applicant’s fitness for continued military service due to his diagnosis of migraine headaches.  .  The board recommended the applicant be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  

On 15 Nov 91, the applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the MEB.  

On 4 Dec 91, an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) convened and found the applicant unfit for continued military service and recommended he be transferred to the TDRL with a combined compensable disability rating of 50 percent for his migraine headaches.  

On 10 Dec 91, the applicant concurred with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB. 

On 23 Jan 92, the applicant was relived from active duty and placed on the TDRL, effective 24 Jan 92, in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) with a combined compensable disability rating of 50 percent.  

On 1 Jul 93, during a TDRL periodic review, an IPEB convened and found the applicant unfit and recommended a permanent retirement with a combined compensable disability rating of 30 percent.  The IPEB noted that while applicant’s probable mixed headaches improved, he was still unfit for continued service.  

On 27 Jul 93, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the applicant be removed from the TDRL, effective 6 Aug 93, and permanently retired for physical disability.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibits C and D.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice.  The applicant contends he should have been promoted to the grade of technical sergeant prior to his medical retirement.  However, he became ineligible for promotion when he was found unfit for continued service and did not hold the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) prior to his retirement.  His promotion was appropriately removed in accordance with AFR 39-29, Promotion of Airmen, when he was found unfit for further military service by the Secretary of the Air Force on 12 Dec 91 and placed on the TDRL, effective 24 Jan 92.  His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty, correctly reflects the grade the member held at the time of retirement and his retirement order also reflects this rank as “highest grade held on active duty: SSgt.”  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial indicating the preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred in the applicant’s disability processing.  The applicant was selected for promotion to technical sergeant (E-6) during cycle 92A6 with a promotion sequence number 8996.0, which would have incremented on 1 Jun 92.  Per AFPC/DPSOE, the applicant was ineligible for promotion as he was found unfit by the Secretary of the Air Force on 12 Dec 91 and the promotion eligibility status code “L” was updated removing his projected promotion.  The law allowing the retirement of members who would have been promoted to a higher grade were they not found unfit to retire in said grade did not come into effect until 1997 when 10 U.S.C. § 1372 was amended by the Fiscal Year 1997 NDAA.  Prior to the amendment to the law, members were retired in the grade they held on their date of separation.  In this case, the applicant’s retirement orders correctly reflect he was retired in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) per the law in effect at the time of his separation.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 13 Jan 14, for review and comments 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 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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility 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.  

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.  

________________________________________________________________




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-2013-03741 in Executive Session on 20 May 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Aug 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 1 Nov 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPFD, dated 12 Dec 13.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jan 14.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair







2