Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04857
Original file (BC 2013 04857.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-04857
						COUNSEL: NONE
	 					HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

Her Reserve retired pay grade be changed from Technical Sergeant 
(TSgt, E6) to Master Sergeant (MSgt, E7).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She received Reserve Order 168, dated 6 Mar 08, discharging her 
in the grade of MSgt.  However, when she applied for retirement 
she was told the order on file with the same number reflected 
her discharge was in the grade of TSgt. 

During the year of her inappropriate behavior, she stopped 
taking her antidepressant medication and was self-medicating.  
She was demoted to the grade of TSgt and was recommended for 
placement in an inactive status.  She requests her creditable 
service in the grade of MSgt prior to 2006 be accepted to 
determine her retired grade for pay.  

In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of 
Reserve Order A-168, dated 6 Mar 08, a letter from ARPC/DPTSA 
dated 20 Sep 13, Medical Narrative Summary (NARSUM), Reserve 
Order EL 1892, dated 8 Feb 13, and a Retiree Account Statement 
(RAS).

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to Reserve Order A-0564, dated 13 Feb 07, the 
applicant was administratively demoted to the grade of TSgt 
while a member of the Air Force Reserve under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2503, Administrative Demotion of Airmen.  The specific 
reason for the demotion was drug abuse.  

According to Reserve Order A-168, dated 6 Mar 08, she was 
discharged from the Air Force Reserve effective 20 Mar 08, in 
the grade of TSgt with service characterized as general (under 
honorable conditions).
According to Reserve Order EL 1892, dated 8 Feb 13, she was 
authorized retired pay Per Title 10, Section 12732 effective 
16 Jul 13 (her 60th birthday) and was placed on the Air Force 
Retired list in the grade of TSgt (highest grade satisfactorily 
held).  She served 27 years and 4 days of satisfactory service 
for basic pay.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPTTR recommends denial.  The highest grade satisfactorily 
held is the grade of TSgt.  A highest grade held determination 
was not completed and the applicant’s Reserve retired pay was 
established in the grade of TSgt.  ARPC can only change the 
retirement grade when the lower grade was not the result of 
misconduct.  

The applicant was promoted to the grade of MSgt effective 1 Nov 
00; however, she was demoted on 13 Feb 07, to the grade of TSgt 
with a Date of Rank (DOR) and effective date of 13 Feb 07 for 
drug abuse. Recommend that the applicant’s retirement grade 
satisfactory held be TSgt.

The complete DPTTR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit 
B.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 10 Jan 14, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office. 

________________________________________________________________ 

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. After 
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and the applicant’s 
complete submission, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s 
records should be changed as requested.  Therefore, we agree 
with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed 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 Docket Number BC-
2013-04857 in Executive Session on 7 Aug 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

       , Panel Chair
       , Member
       , Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered:   

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Sep 13, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPTTR, dated 20 Dec 13, w/atchs.  
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 14. 
                                   

 

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04039

    Original file (BC 2013 04039.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    ________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 02570

    Original file (BC 2014 02570.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04986

    Original file (BC 2013 04986.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008924

    Original file (20140008924.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests correction of her record to show she was placed on the Army of the United States (AUS) Retired List in pay grade E-7. d. A DD Form 368 (Request for Discharge or Clearance from Reserve Component), dated 3 September 1992, showing she requested clearance to enlist in the ARARNG. The evidence of record shows the applicant was promoted to pay grade E-7 in the AFRES effective 1 September 1988 and served in that rank/grade for more than 2 years.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01841

    Original file (BC-2012-01841.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 potential—demonstrated poor judgment unbecoming of an Air Force NCO—consider for promotion.” On 18 Mar...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02469

    Original file (BC 2013 02469.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    In support of her request the applicant provides copies of her DD Form 2656, Data for Payment of Retired Personnel; ARPC Form 83, Application for Retired Pay; DFAS CL 7220/148, Retiree Account Statement; Reserve Order EL-2550 and ARPC/DPTTR memorandum dated 11 Apr 2013. On 7 Jul 2012, she declined coverage under the SBP, and her spouse concurred in her decision. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Jul 2013.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00909

    Original file (BC-2007-00909.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The ARPC/A1B complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFCAF/PS has stated that after a review of the Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS), the applicant’s security clearance eligibility is coded as “Loss of Jurisdiction,” not suspended. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Jun 07. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFCAF/PS, dated 14 Aug 07.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03920

    Original file (BC-2003-03920.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-01771

    Original file (BC-2007-01771.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    According to the Area Defense Counsel's handout, "the member receives retirement pay at the highest grade held after becoming eligible to retire. On 1 Jun 05, the applicant retired as a reserve MSgt with more than 2 years of creditable service for an active duty retirement under federal law. JA notes the highest grade held on active duty satisfactorily by the applicant was CMSgt, thereby permitting him to be advanced to that grade upon reaching 30 years of service.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00494

    Original file (BC-2010-00494.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00494 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His demotions to staff sergeant (SSgt) and technical sergeant (TSgt) be removed from his record and his rank be restored to master sergeant with an effective date of 1 Oct 07. DPSOE noted there is no evidence of an error or an injustice in the...