RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00936
		INDEX NUMBER: 100.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His grade be advanced on the retired list to technical sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The highest rank he held while on active duty was E-6.  He earned the rank of E-6, with a lot of work and long hours.  He served his country faithfully and honorably for over 20 years.

He was supposed to be retired at the highest rank held, when he reached 30 years of total service.  He has done this and the advancement on the retired list did not happen.  He tried to find out why and never received an answer.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 18 August 1954 for a period of four years.  He served on continuous active duty and was progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant, with a date of rank of 1 August 1968.  He received an Article 15 on 6 November 1970 for being drunk and disorderly in station on or about 4 November 1970 and was reduced to the grade of staff sergeant and ordered to forfeit $100.00 of his pay for two months, restriction to the base for a period of 30 consecutive days.  However, the execution of the portion of the punishment which pertained to the reduction in grade and forfeiture which exceeded $50.00 of pay per month for two months and 30 day base restriction was suspended until 28 April 1971 unless sooner vacated.  On 22 February 1971, the applicant was convicted of being drunk and disorderly by the 81st District Court of Michigan.  For this misconduct, his punishment consisted of paying $35.00 and the suspension of his previous misconduct was vacated due to the misconduct on 14 February 1971.

The applicant retired on 1 September 1974 with service characterized as honorable.  On 19 May 1976, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Counsel (SAF/PC) found the applicant did not satisfactorily serve in any higher grade than staff sergeant.  He was retired in the grade of staff sergeant, effective 1 September 1974, and was credited with 20 years and 13 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 if 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.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with an attachment, 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 16 April 2004 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 19 May 1976, 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 September 1974.  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-2004-00936 in Executive Session on 18 May 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Mar 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 7 Apr 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Apr 04.