RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04083
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, effective 31 January 2004, be corrected to reflect master sergeant (E-7) instead of technical sergeant (E-6).
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was demoted from E-7 to E-6 just prior to his retirement. However, he was later granted advancement to the grade of E-7 which is reflected in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) and on his military retiree identification card (ID). Nevertheless, the rank and grade of technical sergeant (E-6) is reflected on his DD Form 214. The discrepancy in his rank and grade causes problems when applying for government employment.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 18 January 1984.
According to the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS), the applicant was promoted to the grade of E-7, effective 1 November 1999.
On 20 March 2003, the applicants commander found he committed an offense under Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and imposed punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of E-6 and a reprimand.
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On 22 October 2003, according to special orders AC-000726, the applicants special orders AC-007762 was rescinded.
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.
On 31 January 2004, the applicant retired in the grade of E-6 and was credited with 20 years and 13 days of active service.
On 12 April 2004, according to special orders AC-007945, the applicants special orders AC-000832 was amended by direction of the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF). Specifically, in accordance with Title 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) Sections 8964 and 8992, effective 18 January 2014, the applicant was advanced to the grade of master sergeant on the retired list by reason of completing a term of 30 years active service plus service on the retired list on 17 January 2014.
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. The applicants DD Form 214 accurately reflects the active duty grade/pay grade of technical sergeant (E-6). Governing directives, Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1336.01, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214/5 Series), Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3202, Separation Documents, or policy do not authorize the entry of projected grades or advancements that have an effective date after the date range for which the DD Form 214 is prepared. Under Title 10 USC § 8964, the applicants advancement to the previously held grade of master sergeant (E-7), effective 18 January 2014, is for the purpose of retired pay and benefits. The applicant failed to provide evidence that the publication of the DD Form 214 is in error and not in compliance with governing directives and policy.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR 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 17 February 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
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 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 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-2014-04083 in Executive Session on 28 April 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 September 2014, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 6 January 2015.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 February 2015.
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2008 | BC-2007-03859
On 4 November 2003, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the demotion action to senior airman with an effective date of rank of 30 October 2003. On 8 January 2004, Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) determined the applicant would be retired in the grade of senior airman by virtue of not serving satisfactorily in the higher grade of technical sergeant. He is requesting that his rank of technical sergeant be restored.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05366
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 01374
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. 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. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02496
On 26 February 2003, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) determined the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in his highest grade held of master sergeant (E-7) within the meaning of Section 8964, Title 10, United States Code. The applicant has not provided any evidence that the court-martial conviction or sentence were the result of error or injustice. When an enlisted member is demoted and retires in a grade lower than the highest grade held on active duty, 10 USC,...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 04134
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In further support of his request the applicant provides a copy of a court report reflecting the charges against him were withdrawn. Therefore, in the interest of equity and justice, we recommend the applicants records be corrected to show that he was advanced to the grade of MSgt on the United States Air Force Retired List by reason of...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00852 INDEX CODE: 131.09 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His retirement pay grade advancement to staff sergeant (E-5), effective 3 June 2004, be changed to 2003 rather than 2004. AC- 021666, dated 13 September 1993, reveals that, effective 3 June 2004, the applicant will be advanced to the...
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.