RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05084
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be changed to reflect he was advanced on the retired list from the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) to the grade of master sergeant (E-7), effective 14 Jan 05, and he receive any back-pay due him from the correction.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His advancement in grade should have increased his retired pay in accordance with 10 U.S.C., sections 8964 and 8992.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 15 Jan 75.
On 31 Jan 95, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, retired, effective 1 Feb 95, in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), and was credited with 20 years and 16 days of active service.
According to Special Order No. AC-000059, dated 5 Oct 94, provided by the applicant, effective 15 Jan 05, he was advanced to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) on the Air Force retired list by reason of completing a total of 30 years of active service plus service on the Air Force retired list on 14 Jan 05.
In accordance with USC 10, Section 8964, 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 his active service plus his service on the retired list totals 30 years, to be advanced on the retired list to the highest grade in which he served on active duty satisfactorily as determined by the Secretary of the Air Force.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
DFAS recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The effective date of the applicants advancement in grade, as noted in the orders from the Air Force, is 15 Jan 05, and his military retired pay was so adjusted, effective 1 Feb 05 (the first day of the following month). His gross retired pay was increased from $1209.00 to $1381.00 as a result of the advancement. There are no further changes required to his military pay account.
A complete copy of the DFAS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 20 May 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 (U.S.C.), §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. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-05084 in Executive Session on 14 Oct 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Oct 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, DFAS, dated 24 Mar 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 14.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00307 INDEX CODE: 131.09 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His retirement pay grade be changed from E-6 to E-7. On 27 Oct 97, after considering the matters presented by the applicant, the commander found that the applicant had committed one or more of the offenses alleged and imposed...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00827
He be advanced to the highest grade held (HGH) of Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt), effective 1 March 1992, based upon over 30 years of service in the armed forces as enacted into law per 10 USC 8964(F), Public Law 100-180, 4 December 1987. It was determined that the applicant had served satisfactorily in the highest grade of CMSgt and that he be advanced on 27 February 2002, which is the date the applicant will have completed 30 years of active service and service on the retired list. He...
He be advanced to the highest grade held (HGH) of Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt), effective 1 March 1992, based upon over 30 years of service in the armed forces as enacted into law per 10 USC 8964(F), Public Law 100-180, 4 December 1987. It was determined that the applicant had served satisfactorily in the highest grade of CMSgt and that he be advanced on 27 February 2002, which is the date the applicant will have completed 30 years of active service and service on the retired list. He...
On 1 Feb 89, the applicant retired under the provisions of AFR 35-7 (Voluntary-Retirement For Years of Service Established By Law) with an honorable characterization of service in the grade of staff sergeant. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Special Programs Section, AFPC/DPPRRP, reviewed this application and indicated that Section 8961, Title 10, USC, states, “Unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some other provision of law, a Regular or Reserve of the Air Force....who retires other...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03425
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03425 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: By amendment, his effective date of advancement to the grade of master sergeant on the retired list be changed to his original date of advancement to the grade of master sergeant. Effective 6 Oct 00, the applicant was advanced to the grade of...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 97-02235 The Retirement Ops Section, AFPC/DPPRR, also reviewed this application and states that applicant is correctly projected to retire in the grade of technical sergeant, which is the grade he is holding on the date of his retirement. c. The applicant’s retirement order, DAFSO AC-014238, 15 Aug 97 (Atch 4), reflects he will be relieved from active duty on 3 1 Jan 98 and retired 1 Feb 98 with 20 years, 05 months, and 23 days for...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03391
While the applicant contends his wife initiated the contact between them on 17 Jun 94, the allegation underlying the nonjudicial punishment was that on numerous instances after 17 Jun 04, which was the date of the order, the applicant disobeyed the order by making in- person contact with his wife. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence of record and the...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02412
His grade, as reflected on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from active Duty, be changed from technical sergeant (E-6) to master sergeant (E-7). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicants request to correct his grade, as reflected on his DD Form 214,...
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 | CY2010 | BC-2010-04102
On 22 Jan 03, the applicant was reduced in grade from technical sergeant to staff sergeant, with a new date of rank of 21 Nov 02, as a result of an Article 15, due to government travel card (GTC) misuse. SAFPC has reviewed this application, and determined the applicant served satisfactorily in the grade of technical sergeant and should be advanced on the retired list in the grade of technical sergeant when he reaches 30 years of active service. ...