RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04986
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His retired pay rate should be calculated based on the grade of
Master Sergeant (MSgt).
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Currently, his pay rate is being calculated at the rate of a
Technical Sergeant (TSgt); however, he was a MSgt for seven
years.
He held the rank of MSgt before he was demoted to the grade of
TSgt for the last five months of his career. He served as a
MSgt from Jun 06 to Mar 13.
He entered active duty after 7 Sep 80; so his retired pay rate
should be calculated using an average of the 36 highest monthly
basic pay rates.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his
enlisted grade determination instrument; Defense Finance and
Accounting Services (DFAS), Summary of Retired Pay Account;
retirement order, and various other supporting documents.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 4 Dec 91, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular
Air Force for a period of four years.
On 13 Mar 13, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment for
violation of Article 107. As part of his punishment, he
received a reduction to the grade of TSgt.
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. He was credited with 21 years, 8 months, and
27 days of active duty service.
________________________________________________________________
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states that there is no
error or injustice in the applicant's record. On 13 Mar 13, the
applicant accepted non-judicial punishment for violation of
Article 107. As part of his punishment, he received a reduction
to the grade of TSgt. The applicant believes 10 U.S.C.
§l407(f)(3), Special Rule for Enlisted Members, applies and
should authorize him a higher amount of retirement pay.
To qualify for this special rule, the applicant had to regain
the higher grade prior to retirement. 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 in the grade of TSgt.
Since the applicant did not regain the lost promotion prior to
his retirement date, 10 U .S.C. §1407(f)(3) does not apply.
However, because of the applicant's reduction in grade, the SAF
reviewed his case and determined the applicant served
satisfactorily in the higher grade of MSgt. The SAF directed he
be advanced to that grade within the meaning of Section 8964,
Title 10, United States Code.
The applicant will be advanced to the grade of MSgt on the
retired list, effective 04 Dec 21, as directed by the Secretary
of the Air Force (SAF). In addition, the applicant's retired
pay will be adjusted at that time.
The complete DPSOR 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 14 Mar 14 for review and comment within 30 days.
As of this date, no response has been received by this office
(Exhibit D).
________________________________________________________________
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, we agree with the opinion and recommendation
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its
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.
________________________________________________________________
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-2013-04986 in Executive Session on 19 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 21 Oct 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 28 Feb 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Mar 14.
3
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 | 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 | 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 05056
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05056 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. Each retired member of the Air Force is entitled to be advanced on the retired list to the highest grade in which they served on active duty satisfactorily as determined by...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2004-00487-2
Applicant’s enlistment date was 5 Dec 01 and his date of separation (DOS) was 4 Dec 03. Counsel’s complete submission is at Exhibit K. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: After a careful reconsideration of the applicant's request and his most recent submission, we do not find it sufficiently compelling to warrant a revision of the Board’s prior decision in this case. Exhibit K. Letter, Counsel, dated 23 Nov 08.
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 | 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...
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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 04857
A highest grade held determination was not completed and the applicants Reserve retired pay was established in the grade of TSgt. 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. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that...
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...