RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-02135

						COUNSEL:  

						HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect he was retired in the grade of Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt, E-9) with 30 years of active duty service.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

AFI 36-2603, Service Retirements, requires a highest grade held (HGH) determination be completed when a member is retired in a grade lower than the highest grade held on active duty.  He provides documents which show he served satisfactorily in the higher grade of CMSgt within the meaning of 10 U.S.C. § 8964.  

Per the HGH determination, he was advanced to the grade of CMSgt effective 4 February 2016.  He requests his DD Form 214 and records be updated to reflect his grade of CMSgt with 30 years of service and that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) be notified.  In accordance with the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) directive, this should have been completed automatically.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 4 February 1986.

On 22 September 2012, the applicant was arrested by the California Highway Patrol after accelerating to 97 miles per hour.  The applicant initially denied having consumed any alcohol but then admitted to drinking two beers.  On 15 October 2012, a blood alcohol test revealed the applicant’s blood alcohol content (BAC) was .20.  

On 5 November 2012, the 60th Maintenance Group Commander (60 MXG/CC) notified the applicant of his intent to recommend he be demoted to the grade of Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt, E-8) in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, and AFI 36-2618, Enlisted Force Structure, for his failure to detect and correct conduct and behavior that placed him and others at risk and failure to demonstrate Air Force core values, serve as a role model for airmen to emulate and epitomize the qualities of a military leader as evidenced by his reckless driving and BAC twice the legal limit.    

On 14 November 2012, the applicant requested he be permitted to retire in the grade of CMSgt in lieu of administrative demotion.  

On 7 December 2012, the 60th Air Mobility Wing Commander (60 AMW/CC) recommended denial of the applicant’s request to retire in the grade of CMSgt in lieu of administrative demotion.  

On 10 December 2012, the 60 AMW Judge Advocate (60 AMW/JA) found the recommendation for administrative demotion legally sufficient, pending the final determination of the applicant’s request he be granted retirement in lieu of demotion.  

On 20 December 2012, the 18th Air Force Commander (18 AF/CC) recommended the applicant’s request for retirement in lieu of administrative demotion be denied.  The 18 AF/CC stated the applicant’s off-base reckless driving while intoxicated at more than twice the legal limit would typically result in a reduction in grade if handled by nonjudicial punishment (NJP).  The applicant also had not held the grade of CMSgt for even a full year (DOR: 1 February 2012).  

On 14 January 2013, the Air Mobility Command Vice Commander (AWM/CV) recommended denial of the applicant’s request for retirement in lieu of administrative demotion.  

On 23 May 2013, the SecAF denied the applicant’s request he be retired in the grade of CMSgt in lieu of administrative demotion.  The SecAF determined it was not in the best interest of the Air Force to grant the applicant’s request.

According to Special Order AA-0014 dated 29 July 2013, the applicant was demoted to the grade of SMSgt with date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 27 June 2013 in accordance with AFI 36-2502 and AFI 36-2618 for failure to fulfill his responsibilities.  

On 16 October 2013, the SecAF determined the applicant served satisfactorily in the higher grade of CMSgt within the meaning of 10 U.S.C. § 8964 and directed the applicant be advanced on the Retired List effective the date of completion of all required service.  

The applicant retired 1 January 2014 in the grade of SMSgt.  He was credited with 27 years, 10 months and 27 days of active duty service.  

On 12 May 2016, the DFAS informed the applicant they were unable to process his request that his retirement pay be calculated to reflect in the grade of CMSgt with 30 years of service effective 4 February 2016 and recommended he submit an application to the AFBCMR.  The applicant’s pay records reflect he is receiving retired pay in the grade of CMSgt.  

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/DP2STM recommends denial.  The applicant’s retired grade is SMSgt.  The SecAF determined he be advanced to the grade of CMSgt on the Retired List effective 4 February 2016.  The applicant’s military/pay records reflect the advancement and there is no error in the applicant’s records.  To grant relief would be contrary to the criteria established by 10 U.S.C. § 8964 and 10 U.S.C. § 8992.   

In accordance with AFI 36-3202, Separation Documents, the DD Form 214 reflects the active duty grade held at separation.  The grade on his DD Form 214 is correct since he was in the grade of SMSgt at the time of his separation on 31 December 2013, his final day on active duty.  These entries do not change upon advancement on the Retired List.

Per 10 U.S.C. § 8964, each retired member of the Air Force who is retired with less than 30 years of active service is entitled, when his active service plus his service on the Retired List totals 30 years, to be advanced on the Retired List to the highest grade satisfactorily held as determined by the SecAF.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Air Force OPR states the grade of SMSgt reflected on his DD Form 214 does not change upon advancement on the Retired List.  This is contradictory to the direction of the SecAF.  The OPR also states that his military and pay records reflect the advancement.  However, DFAS shows his grade of SMSgt.  The only way DFAS will correct his pay is to have a DD Form 214 which states his grade as CMSgt with 30 years of service.  These are the directions provided by the SecAF and the changes cannot be completed without the DD Form 214.

The applicant’s complete submission, 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.  The applicant requests a new DD Form 214 so that he may receive retired pay as a CMSgt with 30 years of service per his HGH determination; however, we disagree.  It appears the applicant has misinterpreted the HGH determination which advanced him to the HGH of CMSgt upon his completion of 30 years of active duty and inactive service (time on the Retired List) for pay purposes.  However, the applicant did not serve 30 years on active duty and is therefore not entitled to the longevity pay afforded for 30 years of active duty service.  Furthermore, we note the applicant’s grade at the time of his discharge was the grade of SMSgt, therefore, his DD Form 214 is correct.  In view of the above, 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 or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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-2016-02135 in Executive Session on 7 September 2017 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-02135 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 May 2016, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 26 August 2016.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 December 2016.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.  

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.