RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02729

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty, effective 27 September 2001, be corrected to reflect technical sergeant (E6) instead of staff sergeant (E5).  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She did not notice the error until she went through her papers.  She earned technical sergeant and would like it corrected on her DD Form 214.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Reserve on 24 July 1987.  

According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, effective 27 September 2001, she was ordered to active duty in participation of OPERATION NOBLE EAGLE in conjunction with the Pentagon attack for port mortuary services during the period of 13 September 2001 through 27 September 2001.  She was released from active duty due to demobilization and credited with 15 days of active service.  

On 24 April 2003, a Reserve order was issued showing the applicant was promoted to the grade of technical sergeant, effective 1 May 2003.  

On 18 June 2007, the applicant was relieved of her assignment as a member of the Air Force Reserve and, on 9 August 2007, was transferred to the Retired Reserve List in the grade of technical sergeant (E6) to await retired pay at age 60.  

On 23 November 2011, the applicant was honorably retired in the grade of technical sergeant (E6) and was credited with 24 years, 3 months, and 29 days of service for basic pay.  
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:

ARPC/DPTS recommends denial.  In accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-3202, Separation Documents, the DD Form 214 provides separating members with brief, clear records of their active military service at the time they are transferred, released, discharged, or retired.  The end date of the applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects the date she was released from active duty orders.  A review of her participation records show that she was not on active duty orders at the time of her promotion.  She was not promoted to technical sergeant until 1 May 2003.  Therefore, a new DD Form 214 or correction to the current DD Form 214 cannot be issued.  

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPTS evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

She does not understand why her case is being recommended for disapproval.  She was a reservist for her entire 20 years and not active duty.  She was promoted to the permanent grade of technical sergeant effective 1 May 2003 and did not retire until four years later on 9 August 2007.  She worked hard to earn her rank and would like for her DD Form 214 to reflect her accomplishments, along with her being honorably discharged.  

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is 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 an error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, to include her rebuttal response, 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  While the applicant believes her DD Form 214 effective 27 September 2001, should reflect the grade of technical sergeant, she was not on active duty orders at the time of her promotion.  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-2015-02729 in Executive Session on 10 February 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 June 2015, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, ARPC/DPTS, dated 14 July 2015,   
                 w/atch. 
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 September 2015.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 September 2015, 
                 w/atchs.