RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02251

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, be corrected to reflect the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) 
instead of senior airman (E-4).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) 1 Apr 14, 
prior to being medically retired on 27 Apr 14.  She obtained the 
proper waiver to be promoted without attending Airman Leadership 
School and even had a formal promotion ceremony.  She was advised 
by members of the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) the grade of 
staff sergeant (E-5) would be recorded on her DD Form 214.  Her 
retired pay is calculated at the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) but 
she is now being advised her DD Form 214 is correct and a new one 
will not be created.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 20 Oct 09, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air 
Force.

On 31 Dec 13, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) recommended the 
applicant for permanent retirement for unfitting conditions which 
are compensable and ratable.

On 12 Feb 14, the applicant was relieved from active duty and 
permanently disability retired, effective 27 Apr 14, and was 
credited with four years, six months, and eight days of active 
service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C 
and D.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  AFI 36-2502, Enlisted Airman 
Promotion/Demotion Programs, dated 31 Dec 09, states airmen are 
ineligible for promotion in a particular cycle if they have been 
determined by the Secretary of the Air Force to be unfit to 
perform the duties of their grade because of physical disability.  
The Promotion Eligibility Status (PES) code “L” in the military 
personnel data system, effective 12 Feb 14, removed the 
applicant’s promotion eligibility.  However, for retirement and 
pay purposes, AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, 
Retirement, and Separation, states members who are retired on or 
after 23 Sep 96 may be retired in the regular or reserve grade to 
which they had been selected and would have been promoted had it 
not been for the physical disability for which they were retired.  
The DD Form 214 reflects the active duty grade the member held at 
time of retirement and the retirement order also reflects this 
rank as “highest grade held on active duty,” which was senior 
airman (E-4).

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

AFPC/DPFD recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or an injustice.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 is correct, as 
published.  While the applicant was selected for promotion to the 
grade of staff sergeant (E-5) during cycle l3E5, with a sequence 
number of      , which would have incremented on 1 Apr 14, she had 
not worn [was ineligible for promotion to] the rank of staff 
sergeant (E-5), prior to date of separation.  However, her 
retirement order      , dated 12 Feb 14, reflects the projected 
higher grade of staff sergeant (E-5) as the retired grade.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes the position of each OPR and contends she 
was advised differently by employees from each OPR.  She believes 
she is being penalized for a medical condition beyond her control.  
While undergoing arduous medical treatment and a PEB, she 
continued to serve honorably, including studying for and being 
selected for promotion.  Not knowing the outcome of her PEB, her 
unit placed her in a position of higher authority and gave her the 
responsibilities commensurate with a promotion.  Further, she 
affirms she did wear the rank of staff sergeant prior to her 
separation, and submitted proof in the form of two certificates of 
promotion/recognition signed by members of her chain of command.


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 applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case, to include her rebuttal response; 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 of injustice.  The Board was compelled to note for the 
record the applicant showed significant perseverance in preparing 
for her promotion tests and also demonstrated outstanding 
dedication to duty while contending with her arduous medical 
condition.  While her promotion eligibility was properly suspended 
in February 2014, it is unfortunate this information was not 
properly communicated to her, or her chain of command, prior to 
her promotion increment date.  Her grade of staff sergeant (E-5) 
is properly recognized on her retirement order and for retired 
pay.  The DD Form 214 is correct in this case, as it reflects the 
highest grade held while on active duty and the retirement order 
is also correct, in that it properly recognizes the grade she 
earned, and would have been promoted to, had her medical condition 
not prohibited her from continuing to serve.  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-2014-02251 in Executive Session on 22 Mar 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-02251 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 May 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 9 Jul 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFD, dated 23 Oct 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Nov 14.
Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Nov 14.