RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00686 INDEX CODE: 110.00, 129.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His retired pay grade be changed from technical sergeant to master sergeant. 2. He be given back pay for duty he performed between January 2004 and May 2005. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His two enlistment contracts list his grade as master sergeant, and these contracts are binding. Therefore, he should be retired in the grade of master sergeant. He should be given back pay for the Unit Training Assembly (UTAs) from January 2004 to May 2005 and active duty pay (15 days in 2004 and 20 days in 2005) at the master sergeant pay grade. In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, copies of his enlistment/reenlistment document, a DD Form 2656, Data for Payment of Retired Personnel, documents pertaining to his Congressional inquiry, a copy of his Reserve retirement order, a correction to the Reserve retirement order, a Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) estimate sheet, a Direct Deposit Authorization form, a letter from Defense Finance and Accounting Service – Kansas City (DFAS-KS) dated 18 Jul 07, and a DFAS Statement in Support of Claim/Reward. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant retired from the Air Force Reserve on 30 May 05, in the grade of technical sergeant with a date of rank and effective date of 1 Jul 98. He is currently assigned to ARPC Retired Reserve section awaiting retired pay at age 60. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ ARPC/DPP recommends denial. DPP states they found no documentation in the applicant’s military record to verify that he was ever promoted to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) or that he ever served satisfactorily in that grade. DPP further states all the documentation the applicant provided is questionable and possibly fraudulent. Since the higher grade of master sergeant cannot be verified, his retired grade cannot be changed. The ARPC retirements and separations division reviewed the documents submitted and found numerous discrepancies that raised concerns with the documents provided. a. RCSBP Cost Estimate – The document is an estimate which shows the member’s retired pay and the cost of his RCSBP election. This document is available on the ARPC Public Web page. Anyone can pull it up and input data they want into the system to get an estimate of the RCSBP cost and retired pay. Since the data is input by the requestor, this document cannot be used as verification of a retired grade. b. Statement in Support of Claim/Reward, dated 8 Jan 07 – This is a document completed and signed by the applicant. This document gives DFAS permission to amend any previous documents submitted. This document was completed by the member; it is not verification that the applicant is entitled to a higher retired grade. c. DFAS Letter, dated 18 Jul 07 – This is a letter on DFAS-KS letterhead. All Air Force Reserve retired pay is computed and distributed by DFAS – Cleveland (DFAS-CL) and is based on personnel data provided by ARPC/DPPR. Attached to this letter was an RCSBP Cost Printout, dated 18 Jul 07. The printout is a document that is available on the ARPC Public Web page. This document would not be sent to the member by DFAS-KS. Also, this document cannot be used as verification of a retired grade. d. DD Form 2656, dated 8 Sep 06 – This is a form used by members when they apply for retired pay. Since the applicant is not eligible for Reserve retired pay until Oct, his 60th birthday, there is no reason for this form to be submitted or accepted in 2006. DPPR cannot determine why, or by whom this form was stamped approved. DPPR can only confirm that the form was not received by their office. In addition, all the information on the form is completed by the member; therefore, it could not be used to verify a retire grade. e. Promotion document, Oct – The applicant claims this document is proof that he was authorized the grade of master sergeant by the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF). The document appears to be a promotion order; however, there are several discrepancies on this document. First, the document does not have a valid publishing date. The publishing date used is Oct , which happens to be the applicant’s date of birth. The “order” has the name of the recent Secretary of the Air Force, XXXXXXXXXXX, on it. Orders are not published by SAF; a memorandum is sent to the appropriate office and that office publishes the actual order. Also, the signature element on the “order” is not accurate. f. Retirement document, Oct – The applicant claims this document is proof that he was retired in the grade of master sergeant. This document appears to be an amendment to a Reserve retirement (EK) order. However, there are several discrepancies on this document. The document does not have a valid publishing date. The date used is Oct , which happens to be the applicant’s date of birth. The “order” has the name of the recent SAF on it. The signature element on the “order” is not accurate. Also, the document is not in the proper format for an order amendment. Orders, or amendments to orders, are not published by SAF; a memorandum is sent to the appropriate office and that office publishes the actual order or makes the corrections to the order. DPPR did not receive a memorandum from SAF requesting the applicant’s retired grade be changed. The applicant’s military record does not contain a copy of a DD Form 4, dated 11 Jan 04 and a DD Form 4, dated 3 Apr 05, that he submitted showing his pay grade as master sergeant. His previous unit of assignment was contacted in order to determine if he had ever been promoted to the grade of master sergeant. They advised that the DD Forms 4, reflecting the pay grade of master sergeant were typographical errors and both forms should have reflected the pay grade of technical sergeant. A further review of the unit records showed that at the time of both reenlistments, the applicant was not eligible for promotion to the grade of master sergeant due to not completing the required Professional Military Education (PME). Additionally, he had been briefed on his ineligibility for promotion. Furthermore, the applicant cannot receive back pay for Reserve drills or active duty he performed from 11 Jan 04 to 5 Mar 05 since this duty was performed as a technical sergeant and he was correctly paid at the time. The complete DPP evaluation, with attachments is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that he is unhappy regarding the comment about possible fraudulent and questionable documents. All the documents except for the copies of the DD Form 4, dated 11 Jan 04 and 3 Apr 05, showing a pay grade of master sergeant were supplied to him by his Congressman’s office. His caseworker, acting through the Congressman’s office produced and prepared all the documentation for his case. The only information he provided to his caseworker were the DD Form 4 documents. Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's 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 and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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-2008-00686 in Executive Session on 17 Jul 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2008-00686 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Aug 06, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, ARPC/DPP, dated 7 May 08, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 May 08. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Jun 08. 4 5