Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01374
Original file (BC 2014 01374.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01374

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His active Reserve service of 12 years be credited to his 
retired pay.  In addition, his grade of master sergeant be 
calculated in his retired pay.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served a total of 36 years.  He retired from Active Duty in 
1976 and joined the Active Air Force Reserves and served an 
additional 12 years.  While serving in the Reserves, he was 
promoted to the grade of Master Sergeant.  He believes his 
records should reflect retired Master Sergeant pay at 75 
percent.  He also believes he should have the Survivors Benefit 
Plan (SBP). 

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 6 Jun 
52.

On 29 Feb 76, the applicant retired and was credited with 23 
years, 02 months, and 11 days of active service.   

On 25 May 76, the applicant voluntarily joined the Air Force 
Reserve by Reserve Order DA-1445 and was assigned to 97 Military 
Airlift Squadron, McCord Air Force Base, WA.

On 2 Sep 77, the applicant was promoted to the grade of Master 
Sergeant in the Air Force Reserves by Reserve Order B-842, dated 
2 Sep 77.

Effective 20 Feb 83, the applicant was advanced in grade to 
Master Sergeant by Special Order AC-12491 by reason of 
completing 30 years active service on the Retired List.

On 1 Jul 86, the applicant was Honorably discharged from the Air 
Force Reserve by Reserve Order A-1087, dated 7 Jul 86. 

AFPC/DPFFF has confirmed the applicant has full spouse only SBP 
coverage; therefore, his spouse will receive 55% of gross 
retired pay.  

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 indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  The applicant’s retirement order (AC-
12491, dated 22 Sep 83) represents the Secretary of the Air 
Force (SECAF) decision for advancement to the grade of Master 
Sergeant on the Air Force retired list effective 20 Feb 83. It 
has been confirmed with DFAS that the retired pay is reflected 
as Master Sergeant and current retirement date as 20 Feb 83 to 
coincide with SECAF decision. 

In accordance with AFI 36-3202, Separation Documents, Table 4, 
Rule 4 and 5, a DD Form 214, Block 4a, Grade, Rate or Rank, is 
the active duty grade held at separation.  Block 4b, Pay Grade, 
contains the equivalent numerical rating for the grade shown in 
Block 4a.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 is correct since he was 
the active duty grade of Technical Sergeant at separation on 
29 Feb 76, his final day on active duty.  These entries do not 
change upon advancement on the Retired List.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant submits copies of his military records that reflect:  
Advancement to the grade of Master Sergeant on the Retired List, 
Promotion Order to Master Sergeant, Assignment in the Ready 
Reserves, Assignment as Enlisted Aircrew, Award of the Air Force 
Longevity Service Award, Award of the Air Force Reserve 
Meritorious Service Medal, Aeronautical Orders, and Temporary 
Duty Orders sending him to Birmingham Alabama and Andersen AFB, 
Guam.

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 an error or injustice.  We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his 
rebuttal comments, in judging the merits of the case; however, 
we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force 
offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of an error of injustice.  Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the requested relief.

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-2014-01374 in Executive Session on 10 Mar 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-01374 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 24 Aug 14.
	Exhibit D.  E-mail, AFPC/DPFFF, dated 28 Jan 15.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Nov 14.
	Exhibit F.  Letter from Applicant, dated 4 Dec 14.

						






Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 04083

    Original file (BC 2014 04083.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 28 March 2003, according to special orders AC-007762, the applicant would be relieved from active duty, effective 31 January 2004 and retired effective 1 February 2004 in the grade of master sergeant. On 24 October 2003, according to special orders AC-000832, the applicant would be relieved from active duty, effective 31 January 2004 and retired effective 1 February 2004 in the grade of technical sergeant. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03970

    Original file (BC-2002-03970.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 Dec 82, he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 for financial irresponsibility and was reduced in grade from staff sergeant to sergeant. In their view, the Tower Amendment was not applicable to the applicant because he was reduced in grade prior to completion of 20 years of active service. In order for the applicant to have been eligible for retirement pay recalculation under the Tower Amendment, he would have needed 20 years of active service at the time he held the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02412

    Original file (BC 2014 02412.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 applicant’s request to correct his grade, as reflected on his DD Form 214,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04781

    Original file (BC 2013 04781.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 Apr 14, Special Order AC – 100052, rescinded Special Order AC-014635 to adjust the applicant’s 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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 00643

    Original file (BC 2013 00643.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2013-00643.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 05056

    Original file (BC 2013 05056.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 applicant’s 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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 00197

    Original file (BC 2014 00197.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 2012 05366

    Original file (BC 2012 05366.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 9 Apr 2010, the Secretary of the Air Force determined she would not be advanced to the higher grade of CMSgt when her time on active duty and her time on the retired list totaled 30 years (10 USC § 8964). From the plain language of the statute, she is eligible for advancement on the retired list to the highest grade on active duty served satisfactorily. Her active duty time and her time on the retired list has now reached 30 years and she is eligible to seek and attain her previous rank...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02215

    Original file (BC 2014 02215.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.