RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04039
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her retirement rank be adjusted to reflect Master Sergeant
(MSgt/E-7).
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt/E-6) should be adjusted to
her highest grade held, MSgt. The error occurred when her
records were transferred to the retirement section at the Air
Force Personnel Center (AFPC). They obviously did not recognize
her highest grade obtained was MSgt. She took an administrative
reduction without prejudice in order to take a job in the
Arkansas Air National Guard (ARANG).
In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of her
assignment orders to the ARANG and her promotion order to the
grade of MSgt.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 28 Jul 13, the applicant was relieved from the ARANG with a
compensable disability rating of 60 percent, in the grade of
TSgt, and retired under 10 U.S.C. § 1204. She was credited with
16 years, 11 months, and 24 days of active service for
retirement.
________________________________________________________________
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1PP recommends approval of the applicant's request to have
her retired grade adjusted to MSgt rather than TSgt.
In accordance with the governing directive is AFI 36-3209,
Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and
Air Force Reserve Members, the applicant was demoted without
prejudice from MSgt to TSgt on 5 Dec 05. This demotion was
required for the applicant to transfer to a different position
within the ARANG.
Per AFI 36-3209, section 5.18.7., a member is entitled to be
placed on the retired list established by Title 10 U.S.C.,
§ 8966, Retired Lists, in the highest grade served
satisfactorily."
The complete A1PP evaluation 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 6 Dec 13 for review and comment within 30 days. As
of this date, no response has been received by this office
(Exhibit D).
________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC)
recommends approval of the applicants request for severance
pay [emphasis added} in the higher grade of MSgt/E-7. 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 E.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
By Electronic Mail (E-mail), the applicant concurred with the
recommendation from SAFPC.
The applicants complete response is at Exhibit G.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by
existing law or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We have
carefully reviewed this application and note the advisories from
both NGB and SAFPC have partially misanalysed the requested
relief (e.g. citing incorrect authority for disability
retirements and misanalysing as a disability separation vs
disability retirement, respectively). Nonetheless, we agree
with their analysis of the equities and the recommended relief.
In our view, the evidence of record accurately reflects the
applicant served satisfactorily in the higher grade, prior to
taking a demotion, without prejudice. Generally, members
retiring or separating for disability do so in the grade in
which they are serving. However, members may be eligible to
retire or separate in a higher grade if they served
satisfactorily in a higher grade. SAFPC normally makes this
determination, but apparently they werent consulted. Based on
the record before us and SAFPCs rationale (albeit on an
advisory for disability separation vs retirement), we conclude
the applicant should have been retired in the higher grade of
MSgt rather than TSgt. Accordingly, we recommend the
applicants record be corrected to the extent indicated below.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that effective
29 Jul 13, she was retired in the grade of Master Sergeant (E-7)
rather than Technical Sergeant (E-6).
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2013-04039 in Executive Session on 8 Jul 14 and
2 Feb 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
All members voted to correct the record as recommended. The
following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2013-04039 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Aug 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 2 Oct 13.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Dec 13.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAFPC, dated 7 Jan 15.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Jan 15.
Exhibit G. Electronic Mail, Applicant, dated 20 Jan 15.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05285
According to Mil Form 88, Record of Proceedings under Article 15, WCMJ, on 17 June 2010, the Assistant Adjutant General imposed nonjudicial punishment on the applicant who was reduced from the rank of MSgt to the rank of SSgt effective 17 June 2010. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In a memorandum dated 6 January 2014, NGB/A1PP recommends correcting the applicants records to reflect his retirement rank as TSgt. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03407
The other is Section 8964, which is a separate section dealing with circumstances not applicable to his situation. In this respect, we note that Section 8963, Title 10 USC, allows members to retire in the highest grade in which they served on active duty satisfactorily as determined by the Secretary of the Air Force. Further, SAFPC determined the applicant served satisfactorily on active duty in the grade of MSgt and should be retired in that grade.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03927
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03927 INDEX CODE: COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Item 18, Pay Date, located on his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, be changed from 760414 to 740103 and that Item 26, Reenlistment Eligibility, be changed from “Ineligible” to Retired Ready...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03259
Title 10 USC, Section 1407(f)(2)(B), states if an enlisted member was at any time reduced in grade as the result of a court-martial sentence, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative action, unless the member was subsequently promoted to a higher enlisted grade, the computation of retired pay is determined under Title 10 USC, Section 1406, Retired pay base for members who first became members before September 1980: final basic pay. The applicant further contends the demotion was invalid...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01043
The MDANG was aware of her medical issues as well as her request to medically separate. As noted by the BCMR Medical Consultant, in order for the applicant to receive a medical discharge, there must be a medical condition that precluded retention: the evidence of record does not support that this is the case. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 11 February 2014, she was...
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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 02570
After considering the applicant's appeal and the Staff Judge Advocate's (SJA) legal review, the demotion authority approved the demotion action from MSgt to TSgt effective 20 Nov 13. The applicant's fitness records were not present in the Air Force Fitness Management System and were not provided by the applicant as evidence. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant notes that her case is based on failure to remain fit in a 24...
Since the applicant had served on active duty in the higher grade of MSgt from 1 June 1993 through 14 December 1997, an advancement grade determination was required and accomplished at the time of applicant’s request for retirement. A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, also evaluated the case and indicates the demotion action taken against the applicant was procedurally correct and there is no evidence there were...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00824
According to Special Order (SO) A-7, dated 6 Oct 06, on 15 Oct 06, The Adjutant General (TAG) of Pennsylvania Air National Guard (PA ANG), demoted the applicant to the grade of MSgt for failure to fulfill his Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) responsibilities. According to a memorandum, dated 10 Oct 13, from TAG, the denied the applicants appeal, dated 21 Aug 13, and determined that his appeal was untimely based on his submission 6 years after the events occurred. Further, while we note...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00059
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He served in the grade of master sergeant (MSgt) from 1 October 1974 to 3 December 1974; therefore, he should be retired in that grade. The DPPRRP evaluation is at Exhibit D. The SAFPC Legal Advisor concurs with DPPPWB that denial of the applicant’s request is appropriate since he voluntarily refused promotion to MSgt. In response to DPPRRP’s request for review, the SAFPC Legal Advisor states that...