RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00494 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty be corrected as follows: a.  Item 4a, Grade, Rate or Rank, be changed to reflect “MSgt” rather than “TSgt.” b.  Item 4b, Pay Grade, be changed to reflect “E-7” rather than “E-6.” Item 12h, Effective Date of Pay Grade, date change not specified. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Department of the Air Force letter dated 26 October 1993, indicates that she has served satisfactorily within the confines of her previous grade of E-7. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 4 June 1975. She was progressively promoted to the grade of Master Sergeant, E-7. According to copies of documents extracted from her military personnel record, by means of an AF Form 3070, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings, the applicant’s commander offered her nonjudicial punishment (NJP) proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on 23 July 1993, for one specification of a violation of Article 111, Drunken or Reckless Operation of Vehicle, Aircraft, or Vessel. The applicant acknowledged the NJP on 28 July 1993, and waived her right to trial by court-martial. However, she elected to consult counsel, submit a written statement in her behalf, and requested a personal appearance before her commander. On 30 July 1993, the commander determined the applicant did commit the offense and imposed the Article 15. The applicant’s imposed punishment was a reduction to the grade of Technical Sergeant, forfeiture of $922.00 pay, and 30 days of extra duty. The applicant appealed the commander’s decision. The appeal was denied and the Article 15 proceedings were reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient. On 31 March 1994, the applicant was released from active duty with an honorable characterization of service and a narrative reason for separation of “Voluntary Retirement Reduction in Force.” She was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 18 years, 9 months, and 27 days of service for retirement. By way of special order AC-001696, she was assigned to the Retired Reserve List until 17 April 2005. 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. DPSOR states that the applicant’s DD Form 214 was published for the period of active duty from 4 June 1975 through 31 March 1994. On 4 June 2005, the applicant was retired in the grade of Master Sergeant (MSgt) E7, under Title 10 USC 8964, upon completion of 30 years active and inactive service. The advancement under this section of Title 10 is for the purpose of retired pay. The applicant’s DD Form 214 accurately reflects that her grade was Technical Sergeant (TSgt), E6 on 31 March 1994, the effective date of the DD Form 214. The governing directives, DoDI 1336.1, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214/5 Series), and AFI 36-3202, Separation Documents, do not authorize the entry of projected grades or advancements that have an effective date subsequent to the date range for which the DD Form 214 is prepared. They have confirmed the applicant’s pay file accurately reflects the “retired grade” of MSgt/E7, effective 4 June 2005. The applicant did not provide evidence that the publication of the DD Form 214 was 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 15 September 2014, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). To date, a response has not 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 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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that 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-2014-00494 in Executive Session on 6 January 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00494 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Jan 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 29 Apr 2014. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Sep 2014.