RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00583 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, be corrected to reflect she was retired in the grade of 
technical sergeant (TSgt), rather than staff sergeant (SSgt). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Although her DD Form 214 reflects she was Temporary Disability 
Retired, she was permanently disability retired due to Lupus in 
the grade of TSgt. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, including attachment, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained 
in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air 
Force, which are at Exhibits C and D. Accordingly, there is no 
need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to have 
her rank, as reflected on her DD Form 214, corrected to reflect 
she held the grade of technical sergeant when she was transferred 
to the TDRL. The applicant was considered and tentatively 
selected for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant during 
cycle 08E6 and received promotion sequence number 7910.0 which 
would have incremented on 1 Jul 09; however, she was found unfit 
for further military service on 3 Jul 08 and placed on the TDRL 
in the grade of staff sergeant, effective 12 Sep 08. She was 
subsequently permanently disability retired, effective 14 Jul 10, 
in the grade of technical sergeant. In accordance with AFI 36-
2502, airmen are ineligible for promotion in a particular cycle 
if they have been determined to be unfit for continued military 


service. Furthermore, service members who are retired on or 
after 23 Sep 96 may be retired in the regular or reserve grade 
that they had been selected and would have been promoted had they 
not been retired due to a physical disability; this is for 
retirement pay purposes only. The applicant’s DD Form 214 
accurately reflects the grades she held at the time of her 
discharge and transfer to the TDRL, and subsequent permanent 
disability retirement. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

HQ AFPC/DPPD recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence 
of an error or injustice. The applicant was selected for 
promotion to TSgt, but was unable to pin on the higher grade due 
to her being found unfit for continued military service due to a 
physical disability. She was retired in the grade of TSgt for 
retired pay purposes and her DD Form 214 accurately reflects the 
grade she held while on active duty and was wearing at the time 
of separation. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 
8 Apr 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, 
no response has been received by this office (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 error or injustice. After careful 
consideration of the applicant's request and the available 
evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or 
injustice to warrant corrective action. The facts and opinions 
stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence 
of record and have not been adequately rebutted by applicant. 
Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which 
she was entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or 
appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to 
disturb the existing record. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 


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-2011-00583 in Executive Session on 18 Oct 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Feb 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 9 Mar 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 28 Mar 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Apr 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair