RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03149 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of 
Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to reflect his pay grade was 
E-6, instead of E-5. 

 

2. His retired pay be recomputed based on this correction. 

 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The error annotated on his DD Form 214 caused his retirement pay 
to be that of staff sergeant (E-5), instead of technical 
sergeant (E-6). 

 

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

 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 20 April 1967, the applicant was promoted to the grade of 
technical sergeant (E-6), effective and with a date of rank of 
1 May 1967. 

 

On 30 September 1971, the applicant retired in rank of technical 
sergeant (E-6) and was credited with 20 years and 26 days of 
total active service. However, while his DD Form 214 correctly 
reflects his rank as “technical sergeant,” his pay grade is 
erroneously reflected as “E-5,” rather than “E-6.” 

 

On 23 August 2012, AFPC/DPSOR notified the applicant that his DD 
Form 214, would be corrected to reflect his pay grade as “E-6,” 
instead of “E-5.” 

 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

DFAS recommends denial of the applicant’s request related to his 
retired pay, indicating there is no evidence of an error or 


injustice. While the applicant contends that his DD Form 214 
contained an error that effected his retired pay, a thorough 
review of his records indicates that his retired pay was 
correctly computed based on his retired grade of technical 
sergeant (E-6) in accordance with Pay Bill 12 (retired pay is 
based on fifty percent of the final active duty pay of members 
completing 20 years of qualifying service for retirement), 
regardless of the noted error on his DD Form 214. 

 

A complete copy of the DFAS 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 30 October 2012 for review and comment within 
30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office (Exhibit D). 

 

 _______________________________________________________________ 

 

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 regarding the 
applicant’s retired pay. 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 Defense 
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) and adopt its rationale as 
the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the 
victim of an error or injustice with respect to his retired pay. 
We note the applicant’s pay grade, as reflected on his DD Form 
214, erroneously reflects “E-5,” instead of “E-6” and will be 
administratively corrected by the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility. Therefore, in view of the above and in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting any relief beyond that rendered 
administratively. 

 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2012-03149 in Executive Session on 2 April 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 June 2012, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, DFAS, undated. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 October 2012. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair