RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02831 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Items 4a and 4b of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect his grade as SSgt, E-5 respectively. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: According to a letter he received from the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) dated 23 January 2012, he should have been discharged in the grade of Staff Sergeant instead of Senior Airman. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: 1. According to documents extracted from the Automated Records Management System (ARMS) the applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who was progressively promoted to the grade of Staff Sergeant, E-5. 2. The applicant was simultaneously the subject of an involuntary discharge under AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5.26.6, unsatisfactory performance, as well as a medical discharge due to intertarsal neuroma of his right foot. 3. As part of the administrative actions, the applicant was demoted to the grade of Senior Airman, effective 8 April 2011, for failing to attain fitness standards in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airmen Promotion and Demotion Programs, para 6.3.5 after he failed to attain overall passing composite scores on 10 Apr 09, 9 Dec 10, and 9 Mar 11. 4. SAFPC convened a Board to determine the appropriate reason for the applicant’s discharge and the characterization of his military service. On 23 January 2012, the Board acknowledged by letter that there appeared to be a significant causal relationship for the majority of the applicant’s disciplinary difficulties based upon the timing of the administrative actions in relation to his medical condition. The Board determined the applicant should be discharged with severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent. The Board also determined that the applicant did serve satisfactorily in the higher grade of Staff Sergeant within the meaning of Section 1212, Disability Pay, of Title 10, United States Code, and that he should be discharged in the grade of Staff Sergeant. The applicant was advised of his right to pursue further appeal through application to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) should he find reason that brings into question the decision of the Board. 5. On 28 March 2012 the applicant was medically discharged in the grade of Senior Airman, E-4, with severance pay with a disability rating of 10 percent in accordance with Department of Defense guidance for applying the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) guidelines. He was credited with serving 8 years, 11 months and 14 days of active duty service. On 23 August 2012, AFPC/DPSOE notified the applicant by letter (Exhibit D) that although SAFPC determined that he served satisfactorily in the grade of Staff Sergeant, it was for disability purposes only. The DD Form 214 issued in conjunction with his 28 March 2012 separation reflected the rank he held at the time of discharge and therefore was correct. _______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPD recommends denial. DPPD states that the applicant’s discharge order AF-039246, issued 2 February 2012, indicates he was entitled to disability severance pay in the grade of Staff Sergeant. The DD Form 214 correctly reflects the grade of Senior Airman which was the active duty grade the applicant was wearing on the date of his separation. The complete AFPC/DPPD 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 11 September 2012 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). To date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ 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. 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 and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that 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 relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 this application in Executive Session on 26 March 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-02831: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 June 2012, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 19 July 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 23 August 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 September 2012.