RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00643
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His highest rank of technical sergeant (TSgt/E-6) be reinstated.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He is the victim of an injustice as he served satisfactorily in
the grade of TSgt, until he was administratively demoted to the
grade of staff sergeant (SSgt/E-5). He was told that he would
receive his grade of TSgt after six months of good conduct. He
has paid for his crimes and learned from his mistake.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicants military personnel records indicate he enlisted
in the Regular Air Force on 22 Jan 93.
On 1 Feb 13, the applicant retired from the Air Force in the
grade of SSgt and was credited with 20 years and 9 months of
total active service.
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 24 May 05, the applicants commander
initiated an Article 15 for resisting arrest and being drunk and
disorderly, in violation of Articles 95 and 134 of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), respectively. As a result, his
punishment consisted of a suspended reduction to the grade of
SSgt, forfeiture of $300 per month for 2 months, and a
reprimand.
On 18 Jan 09, the applicant was arrested for Driving Under the
Influence (DUI). As a result, on 31 Mar 09, his commander
initiated an administrative demotion action, in accordance with
AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, for failure to
fulfill Non-Commissioned Officer responsibilities.
On 4 May 09, the applicants Group Commander approved the
demotion action. The applicant appealed the decision and on 23
Jun 09, the appeal request was denied and he was demoted to the
grade of SSgt, with an effective date of rank (DOR) of 4 May 09.
On 16 Feb 12, the applicant initiated a request for retirement.
Under 10 USC § 8964, Higher grade after 30 years of service;
warrant officers and enlisted members, an enlisted member may
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 (SECAF). As required in AFI 36-3203,
Service Retirements, paragraph 7.4, AFPC/DPSOR requested a
Satisfactory Service Determination to establish the applicants
grade on the retired list.
On 14 Jan 13, a review was conducted by the Secretary of the Air
Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) under the authority delegated by
the SECAF, which determined the applicant did not serve
satisfactorily in any higher grade and would therefore not be
advanced to his former grade under the provisions of 10 USC §
8964.
The applicant was afforded nonjudicial punishment for his first
alcohol-related offense and allowed sufficient opportunity to
correct his behavior. The demotion action following his second
alcohol-related offense was warranted and he received
appropriate consideration for grade advancement. He stated his
commander told him that he would receive his rank back after a
6-month period of good conduct; however, the applicant has no
evidence to support his claim.
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 19 Apr 13 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 an error or injustice. We took
notice of the applicants 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
(OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion
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-2013-00643 in Executive Session on 12 Nov 13, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Feb 13, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 27 Mar 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Apr 13.
Panel Chair
3
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 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 | 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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 02310
On 6 Jan 10, he was driving when he dropped his cell phone. The complete DPSOE 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 8 Sep 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03259
Title 10 USC, Section 1407(f)(2)(B), states if an enlisted member was at any time reduced in grade as the result of a court-martial sentence, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative action, unless the member was subsequently promoted to a higher enlisted grade, the computation of retired pay is determined under Title 10 USC, Section 1406, Retired pay base for members who first became members before September 1980: final basic pay. The applicant further contends the demotion was invalid...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04831
The applicant concurred with the findings of the IPEB and as a result of the dual-action process; her case was referred to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for a determination of the appropriate separation action. On 1 Sep 11, the applicant retired in the grade of A1C, under the provisions of AFI 36-3203, with a reason for separation of voluntary retirement, maximum service or time in grade. The applicants grade of airman first class was accurately reflected on her...
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 | 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 04986
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...