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. His records be corrected to show that he transferred his
Post-9/11 GI Bill educational benefits to his dependents.
(Administratively Corrected)
2. His retirement pay reflect his high three grade of Technical
Sergeant (TSgt, E-6).
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He served satisfactorily in the grade of TSgt and in the grade
of Staff Sergeant (SSgt, E-5) as demonstrated by his Enlisted
Performance Reports (EPR). He should be retired in the grade of
SSgt as a minimum.
He acknowledges he was court-martialed for fraud but was
retained and completed a 20 year career. He completed the
requirement for a high-three retirement in the grade of TSgt and
his retired grade and pay should reflect this. It is additional
punishment to not allow him to retire in the appropriate grade.
The applicant provides no rationale as to why his failure to
timely file should be waived in the interest of justice.
In support of his requests, the applicant provides a letter from
his commander recommending retention, copies of his DD Form 214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; DD Form
256 AF, Honorable Discharge Certificate; and Enlisted
Performance Reports (EPR).
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 30 Jul 90, the applicant entered active duty.
On 27 Oct 05, he was court-martialed and found guilty of making
a false official statement in violation of the Uniformed Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 134 and fraud against the United
States in violation of Article 132. His punishment included
reduction to the grade of Senior Airman (SrA, E-4).
On 30 Nov 06, his commander recommended he be retained in the
Air Force.
On 22 Jun 10, the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) found that
the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in any higher grade
than SrA and that he would not be advanced under the provisions
of 10 U.S.C § 8964.
On 1 Aug 10, the applicant retired in the grade of SrA.
He served 20 years and 1 day on active duty.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In a letter dated 31 Oct 13, AFPC/DPSIT informed the applicant
his records were administratively corrected to show that the
Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) system was updated to
reflect his request to transfer his benefits to his dependents.
The complete DPSIT evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOE states they have no equity in the decision and defer
to the recommendation of DPSOR.
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D.
AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicants request to be
advanced to the grade of SSgt on the Retired List. On 27 Oct
05, he was court-martialed for violation of larceny and making
false official statements. As punishment, he was reduced from
the grade of TSgt to the grade of SrA with a new Date of Rank
(DOR) of 29 Jul 05. Following his reduction to the grade of
SrA, he did not hold any higher grade prior to his 1 Aug
10 retirement effective date.
Advancement determinations are made by the SecAF under 10 U.S.C
§ 8964. 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 the SecAF.
On 22 Jun 10, the SecAF directed the applicant not be advanced
to any higher grade.
The complete DPSOR evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 27 Jun 14, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit
F). As of this date, this office has not received a 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 error or injustice to warrant
changing his retirement grade to TSgt. 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
DPSOR 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, aside from the administrative
correction to transfer his benefits his dependents, we find no
basis to recommend granting the additional 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 AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2013-05056 in Executive Session on 7 Aug 14, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2013-05056 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 23 Oct and 24 Oct 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 31 Oct 13, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 20 Dec 13.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 4 Mar 14, w/atch.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jun 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-1995-02187
His records reflect he only held the grade of SSgt. On 27 February 1996, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) considered and denied the applicant’s request for advancement to the grade of TSgt (Exhibit B). On 16 May 2011, AFPC/DPSOR informed the applicant that because he held the grade of SSgt on the date of his retirement, his records correctly reflects his retired grade of SSgt.
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 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 | 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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 03988
In a letter to the applicant dated 10 December 2013, AFPC/DPSID advised him that his first avenue of relief for his request to replace the 14 January 2012 EPR with the 4 July 2011 and 16 January 2012 electronic EPRs would be through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB). AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends the applicant's record be corrected to reflect promotion to the rank of TSgt with a Date of Rank (DOR) and Promotion Effective Date (PED) of 1 May 2013. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04303
DPSOR forwarded his case to the Secretary of the Air Force for a decision as to whether the Air Force would advance him on the Retired List to a higher grade than SrA when his time on active duty and time on the Retired List totaled 30 years in accordance with 10 USC §8964: Higher grade after 30 years of service: warrant officers and enlisted members (a) Each retired member of the Air Force covered by subsection (b) who is retired with less than 30 years of active service is entitled, when...
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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 03312
His Date of Rank (DOR) to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C) be corrected to 31 Jul 2001 (Administratively Corrected). In a letter dated 10 Jan 2014, AFPC/DPSOE advised the applicant his DOR to the grades of SrA, SSgt, TSgt and MSgt were administratively corrected and that he would receive supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to the grade of SMSgt during the May 2014 Senior Noncommissioned Officer (SNCO) Supplemental Promotion Board. After a thorough review of the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 00-03277 INDEX CODE 126.02 131.09 129.04 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to the grade of E5/staff sergeant (SSgt) and promoted to E6/technical sergeant (TSgt) by setting aside the punishment imposed on him by Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), dated 31 Oct 95,...