RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: 	BC-2003-03227
		INDEX NUMBER: 100.00

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His grade be advanced on the retired list to technical sergeant, with all back pay.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has recently learned that after being on the retired list for a period of ten years, his rank could be advanced to the highest grade he held on active duty.  In view of this, he believes his retirement grade should be reflected as the highest grade he held on active duty.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits his personal statement and a copy of the orders promoting him to the grade of technical sergeant.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 25 October 1968.  He served on continuous active duty and was progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant, with a date of rank of 1 September 1986.  He received an Article 15 on 28 December 1987 for operating a vehicle while drunk and was reduced to the grade of staff sergeant and ordered to forfeit $200.00 of his pay for two months.

On 2 August 1988, he applied for voluntary retirement to be effective 1 November 1988; his commander approved his request.  On 27 September 1988, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Counsel (SAF/PC) found that he did not satisfactorily serve in any higher grade than staff sergeant.  He was retired in the grade of staff sergeant, effective 1 November 1988, and was credited with 20 years and 6 days of active service for retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRRP recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that advancement on the retired list to the highest grade satisfactorily held on active duty is authorized when a member’s active service plus service on the retired list totals 30 years and it is determined by the Secretary of the Air Force that he satisfactorily held the higher grade.  The SAF/PC determined that the applicant did not satisfactorily serve in any grade higher than staff sergeant and he was correctly retired in the grade he held at the time of his retirement.

The AFPC/DPPRRP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 15 November 2003 for review and response within 30 days.  However, as of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice. On 27 September 1988, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Counsel (SAF/PC) found that the applicant did not satisfactorily serve in any higher grade than staff sergeant and he was retired in that grade, effective 1 November 1988.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that this determination should be overturned.  In the absence of evidence that SAF/PC’s determination was arbitrary or capricious, we find that he has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Hence, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 Docket Number BC-2003-03227 in Executive Session on 21 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Sep 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 31 Oct 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Nov 03.