RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03024

 						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records, to include the following documents, be amended to reflect her grade as Technical Sergeant (TSgt, E-6):

	DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, for the period ending 30 December 2012.

	NGB Form 438, Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 26 January 2013.  

	NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, effective 26 January 2013.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She held the grade of TSgt for over 10 years.  It is unfair for her to receive her retirement pay in the grade of TSgt and have her records reflect she was a Staff Sergeant (SSgt, E-5).  

She submitted an IG complaint.  Her commander discriminated against her when he chose her position to be downgraded to the grade of SSgt.  

In an e-mail dated 31 July 2015, she states her retirement pay is in the grade of TSgt and her intent is to have all of her military records reflect her grade as TSgt, not just her retirement pension.

In an e-mail dated 31 December 2015, she states she non-concurred with the demotion action but was still demoted.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 26 January 2013, the applicant was placed on the Retired Reserve List in the grade of TSgt.  

The applicant served a period of active duty from 1 July 2012 to 30 December 2012.  Her DD Form 214 reflects her grade as SSgt.

On 4 June 2011, the applicant signed AF Form 2096, Classification/On-the-Job Training Action, concurring with the transfer of a position grade within the Financial Management (FM) Office.  

In an e-mail dated 20 June 2012, U.S. Army IMCOM Pacific advised the applicant that although normally members would be permitted to remain over-grade for two years, this rule did not apply to Air National Guard (ANG) members who would reach their 57th birthday during the period.  This criteria is stated in the 2012 Enlisted Grade Review (EGR) Guidance, paragraph 3, Establishment of Over-grade Expiration Dates as a Result of EGR.  

In a memorandum dated 20 July 2012, the applicant was notified by her commander of his intent to recommend she be voluntarily demoted to the grade of SSgt and that it was a voluntary change of assignment to a SSgt Unit Manning Document (UMD) position.  The demotion action was without prejudice and not to be interpreted as derogatory in nature.  The specific reason for the proposed action was that the applicant cannot exceed the maximum grade authorized in accordance with the 2012 EGR.   

On 20 July 2012, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the demotion notification and non-concurred with the proposed demotion action and indicated her right to legal counsel and submit statements in her own behalf.     

AF IMT 102, Inspector General, Personal and Fraud, Waste and Abuse Complaint Registration, dated 7 August 2012, unsigned, provided by the applicant, alleges her superintendent required her to sign AF Form 2096 on 4 June 2011 regarding the transfer of a position in the FM office without explaining to her the EGR and the downgrade of her position.  In her complaint, she requested the IG compel her commander to assign her to the MSgt position and that another TSgt be assigned to the downgraded position.  She did not concur with the administrative demotion and noted her military technician job as a budget analyst should be a MSgt authorization due to the difficulty and complexity of the position.  She also stated that she found the commander’s actions incomprehensible and that she felt betrayed.  

Per Special Order P-032 dated 17 August 2012, the applicant was demoted to the grade of SSgt (without prejudice) effective 18 July 2012 with a Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 October 1999.  

On 26 January 2013, the applicant was honorably discharged from the ANG.  Her NGB Form 22 reflects her grade as SSgt.

According to Reserve Order EK-2493 dated 15 March 2013, the applicant was assigned to the Retired Reserve effective 26 January 2013 in the grade of TSgt.  

In an e-mail dated 12 December 2016, SAF/IG indicated they did not find any records of the applicant in their IG records system.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits B and C.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1PP recommends the applicant’s case be directed to ARPC as NGB/A1PP has no authority to determine Highest Grade Held (HGH).  The applicant was demoted without prejudice to the grade of SSgt as a result of the ANG 2012 EGR.  In accordance with the guidance for the 2012 EGR, if a member takes a demotion it will be considered “without prejudice” and they will retire at the HGH.  ARPC conducts a HGH determination on all retirement applications.  

A complete copy of the NGB/A1PP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

ARPC/DPTT recommends denial.  A HGH determination to the grade of TSgt was determined.  Therefore, no corrections are needed to the applicant’s military documents.  

The applicant was voluntarily demoted from the grade of TSgt to SSgt in order for her to maintain her duty position.  In 2013, she applied for a Reserve retirement where it was determined that her HGH was the grade of TSgt.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 from 1 July 2012 to 30 December 2012 cannot be corrected to show her grade as TSgt.  Per AFI 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, discharge, or retired.  In addition, her NGB Form 22 effective 26 January 2013 cannot be corrected to show her grade as TSgt.  Per AFI 36-3203, Service Retirements, enlisted members who retire with a Reserve retirement, other than for physical disability, retire in their current grade.  If a member holds a lower grade than one previously held, a determination of the HGH satisfactorily is required.  ARPC/DPTT is unable to address the contention that her commander discriminated against her when he chose her position to be downgraded to the grade of SSgt.  

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPTT evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.  

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 28 September 2016 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  We note the applicant alleges that she filed an IG complaint indicating she was the victim of discrimination and has not been afforded full protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act (10 U.S.C. § 1034).  However, in our opinion, her unsigned IG complaint dated 7 August 2012 does not substantiate she was the victim of reprisal or discrimination.  In her IG complaint she alleges that she was not appropriately counseled regarding the consequences of signing the AF Form 2096 acknowledging the downgrade of her position and recommended another position be downgraded due to the complexities and technical skills required for her position.  Having carefully reviewed the complete case, we find no evidence the applicant was reprised or discriminated against under 10 U.S.C. § 1034.  Moreover, SAF/IG has indicated they have no record of an IG complaint or investigation.  Other than the applicant’s own uncorroborated assertions that her commander’s actions were arbitrary or capricious, we find no evidence to substantiate she was the victim of reprisal or discrimination.  Based on the preponderance of the evidence, it appears the downgrade of the applicant’s UMD position was in accordance with the 2012 EGR as a result of a UMD change directed by the ANG and it was not derogatory in nature.  We are also persuaded the applicant’s NGB Form 22, NGB Form 438 and DD Form 214 were prepared in accordance with Air Force instructions and correctly reflect her grade of SSgt at the time of her discharge.   Furthermore, a HGH determination was completed and found the applicant’s HGH satisfactorily was the grade of TSgt which is reflected in her DFAS records.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs) and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not sustained her burden of proof that she has been the victim of an error or injustice.   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-2015-03024 in Executive Session on 1 November 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 June 2015, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Memorandum, NGB/A1PP, dated 18 May 2016, w/atchs.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, ARPC/DPTT, dated 15 June 2016, 
			  w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 September 2016.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.