RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04781
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be advanced to the grade of master sergeant (MSgt) on the
retired list.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was promoted to the grade of MSgt on 1 Aug 89 and
satisfactorily served in that grade for three years and three
months. He was reduced to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt)
and served his confinement. He believes not advancing him to
the highest grade he held, especially since he has paid his debt
to society, is double jeopardy.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on
28 Jan 69.
The applicant was tried by court-martial for wrongful use of
marijuana on or about 25 May 92 and 24 Jun 92. He was sentenced
to 30 days confinement, a reprimand, and a reduction in grade to
SSgt (E-5).
On 13 Jul 92, the applicant applied for retirement. On
18 Jul 92, in accordance with Special Order AC-014635, he was
released from active duty in the grade of MSgt on 31 Jan 93 and
retired, effective 1 Feb 93. He was credited with 20 years and
3 days of active service.
On 29 Apr 93, the Secretary of the Air Force determined the
applicant had not served satisfactorily in the higher grade of
MSgt, but found that he served satisfactorily in the grade of
technical sergeant (TSgt) and directed he be advanced to the
grade TSgt on the Retired List.
On 11 Apr 14, Special Order AC 100052, rescinded Special Order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. The highest grade
held while on active duty was MSgt. By amendment the order was
amended to reflect the advancement to TSgt effective 25 Feb 99.
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 applicants
request for advancement on the retired list and determined he
did not serve satisfactorily in the higher grade of MSgt but
found he served satisfactorily in the grade of TSgt and directed
advancement to that grade on the Retired List when his active
duty service and service on the retired list totaled 30 years.
However, during the review of the applicants request it was
found the applicants original retirement order erroneously
reflected his grade as MSgt. A new order was published
correcting his grade to reflect SSgt. The order was further
amended to include the advancement to the grade of TSgt,
effective 25 Feb 99.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation, with attachments,
is at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 2 Jul 14 for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by
this office.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:
After careful consideration of applicants request and the
available evidence of record, we find the application untimely.
Applicant did not file within three years after the alleged
error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10,
United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-
2603. Applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the delay
in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises
issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the
merits. Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of
justice to excuse the applicants failure to file in a timely
manner.
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the
interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the
decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as
untimely.
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2013-04781 in Executive Session on 23 Sep 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 Oct 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 11 Apr 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Jul 14.
3
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00197
The applicant has not provided documentation from his unit commander or primary care manager for invalidating the FA, nor did he provide the specific FA failure. The applicant held the grade of SSgt on the date of his retirement; therefore, his record correctly reflects his retired grade as SSgt. On 11 Dec 13, the Secretary of the Air Force found the applicant served satisfactorily in the grade of TSgt and ordered his advancement to the grade of TSgt when his time on active duty and his...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01771
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01771 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Between the date of his reduction to the grade of Amn (27 Jan 04) and his last day on active duty (31 Dec 04), the applicant held no higher grade than Amn. Based on the applicants date of rank (DOR) to SSgt during cycle 94A5, he was...
His retirement documents were completed with everything for him to sign as a SSgt based on verbal information from the AFOSI. The applicant states that he was not court-martialed because there was no evidence against him. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00643
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force which is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. On 16 Feb 12, the applicant initiated a request for retirement. The demotion action following his second alcohol-related offense was warranted and he...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00643
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force which is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. On 16 Feb 12, the applicant initiated a request for retirement. The demotion action following his second alcohol-related offense was warranted and he...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2003-03941
In addition, they found the following; 1) no convening authority may apply the conditions on suspension to the confinement element of the adjudged sentence; 2) the period of suspension of the punitive discharge and reduction in grade, during which the applicant was required to participate satisfactorily in an acceptable sex offender FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 rehabilitation program, was limited to five years; 3) involuntary appellate leave was to be applied to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02215
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial stating the request is not timely and that there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant held the grade of TSgt at the time of retirement and his records and retired pay are correct. § 8961(b), Retired Grade, General Rule, unless entitled to a higher grade under some other provision of law, enlisted members of the Regular forces retired for other than disability, retire in the Regular grade held on the date of retirement.
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 | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0431
CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD02-0431 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. Reenld as SSgt 5 Jan 83 for 4 yrs.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02624
Regular enlisted members may, when their active service plus service on the retired list total 30 years, be advanced (on the retired list) and receive retired pay in the highest grade held on active duty satisfactorily, as determined by the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) or designee under Title 10, USC, Section 8964. The order also advised that, effective 9 Jun 04, the applicant would be advanced on the USAF retired list to the grade of SSgt, the highest grade held on active duty, by...