RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02412

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  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).

2.  Certified copies of his grade advancement orders be provided 
to Defense Finance and Accounting (DFAS) so that his retired pay 
can be changed (administratively corrected).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been advanced on the retired list on 31 Jan 14 to 
the grade of master sergeant (E-7).  However, because his 
permanent records at the National Personnel Records Center 
(NPRC) do not contain his grade advancement orders, he has not 
been advanced to said grade.  DFAS needs these orders to come 
from the Air Force in order to change his retired pay.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 
31 Jan 84.

On 14 Jul 03, the applicant received an Article 15 for Driving 
While Intoxicated (DWI); he was apprehended while driving 
through the gate to obtain entry on base.  His punishment 
consisted of reduction to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), 
effective 14 Jul 03, and a reprimand.  

On 23 Feb 04, the applicant appealed to the Secretary of the Air 
Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) to request grade advancement at 
the service point in which he would have obtained 30 years of 
service. 

On 16 April 04, SAFPC determined that the member served 
satisfactorily in the grade of master sergeant (E-7) within the 
meaning of Section 8964, Title 10, United States Code, and 
directed the member’s advancement to that grade on the retired 
list effective the date of completion of all required service, 
the date at which he would have completed 30 years of service.  

On 31 May 04, the applicant was relieved from active duty in the 
grade of technical sergeant (E-6) and retired, effective 1 Jun 
04, and was credited with 20 years, 4 months, and 1 day of 
active service.   

On 11 Mar 15, AFPC/DPSOR supplied a letter to the applicant 
stating that they requested a new pay computation from DFAS and 
determined that his retirement pay was incorrect.  All of the 
correct dates and grade information were updated and his pay 
issue should be resolved no later than 1 May 15.

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, indicating 
there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  In accordance 
with AFI 36-3202, Separation Documents, Table 4, Rules 4 and 5, 
Block 4a, Grade, Rate or Rank, of the DD Form 214, is the active 
duty grade held at separation.  Those entries are correct since 
the applicant held the grade of technical sergeant on 31 May 04, 
his final day on active duty.  Those entries do not change upon 
advancement on the Retired List but will always reflect the 
grade held the day a member is released or discharged from 
active duty.   

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant disputes the DFAS printout provided in the 
AFPC/DPSOR advisory.  He states that the retirement pay 
reflected is that for an E-6 and not and E-7.  He feels it 
should be recalculated based on his now grade of E-7.  He feels 
some sort of change should occur to his DD Form 214, to note 
that some sort of advancement occurred.   





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, to include his 
rebuttal response, 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 of injustice.  While the applicant continues 
to argue that some change should be made to his DD Form 214 to 
reflect his advancement to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) on 
the retired list, we are not convinced the DD Form 214 should be 
changed as the orders published by SAFPC serve as the source 
document for his advancement on the retired list.  As for his 
arguments on rebuttal that his retired pay is not correctly 
calculated by DFAS, we note that AFPC/DPSOR notified the 
applicant that his retired pay needed to be recalculated and 
that said recalculation would not be effective until 1 May 15.  
Therefore, as it appears that AFPC/DPSOR is in the midst of 
assisting the applicant with the calculation of his retired pay 
based on his advancement on the retired list, it seems that no 
action by this Board is required as the applicant has not yet 
exhausted the administrative avenues of relief available to him 
to resolve this issue.  Once the applicant has exhausted all 
avenues of administrative relief, if he still believes he is the 
victim of an error or injustice, he may petition this Board for 
reconsideration of his request.  However, said request must be 
accompanied by documentation reflecting his efforts and the 
ultimate decision rendered, as well as documentary evidence 
supporting his belief that his retired pay has been incorrectly 
calculated.  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-2014-02412 in Executive Session on 16 Apr 15, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-02412 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 May 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 4 Aug 14.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Oct 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Nov 14.