RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04831 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her pay grade at retirement be changed from airman first class (A1C/E-3) to technical sergeant (TSgt/E-6). ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She is being paid as an airman first class; however, she served in the grade of technical sergeant for more than four years and her pay should reflect her highest grade held. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 1 Aug 91, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 1 Oct 01, 7 Dec 09, 21 Dec 09, and 12 Oct 10, she received two letters of counseling (LOCs); four Article 15s, and a summary court-martial, resulting in forfeitures of pay, confinements, and reductions in grade, eventually being reduced to the grade of airman first class. On 26 May 10, the squadron commander notified the applicant of administrative discharge action for a pattern of misconduct and failure of the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment (ADAPT) program. On 4 Jun 10, the applicant requested an Administrative Discharge Board (ADB) hearing. The ADB recommended she be discharged for a pattern of misconduct and failure of the ADAPT program with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions) without probation and rehabilitation (P&R). Since the applicant was between 16 and 20 years of service, she requested a review under the Lengthy Service Program (LSP). Due to the applicant’s medical condition, the staff judge advocate (SJA), recommended dual-action processing of the case pursuant to AFI 36-3208, para 6-30. On 30 Jul 10, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) recommended the applicant’s named be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a disability rating of 60 percent, 50 percent for Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and 10 percent for breast cancer (which was in remission). The applicant concurred with the findings of the IPEB and as a result of the dual-action process; her case was referred to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for a determination of the appropriate separation action. On 16 Feb 11, SAFPC notified the applicant that they had determined there were “insufficient mitigating factors to disregard the disciplinary action,” and recommended the previous administrative separation be executed. This determination terminated all other separation actions. In addition, SAFPC determined the applicant would not be advanced to any higher grade under the provisions of Title 10, USC, Section 8964. On 1 Sep 11, the applicant retired in the grade of A1C, under the provisions of AFI 36-3203, with a reason for separation of voluntary retirement, maximum service or time in grade. She was credited with 20 years and 1 month of active service. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, stating, in part, that the applicant was retired in the pay grade of E-3. Even though she did in fact serve in the pay grade of E-6, she is not entitled to receive retired pay in that grade. DPSOR notes the applicant did in fact retire under the High Three Retirement Plan; however, she was reduced in grade and is therefore not entitled to receive pay as a technical sergeant in accordance with AFI 36-3203, Table 7.1, Note 7: ''Enlisted members demoted to a lower grade and retired in that grade will not be paid based on high 36-month average in the higher grades. Their retired pay will be based on "final basic pay" instead of either the high 36-month average or REDUX formulas. When a regular enlisted member's active service added to retired list service totals 30 years, the member may be advanced (on the retired list) and receive retired pay in the highest grade satisfactorily held on active duty, as determined by the SAF or designee (10 USC §8964). Additionally, Special Order Number AC - 014102, amending AC - 013911, states: "The Secretary of the Air Force determined that the above named individual will not be advanced to any higher grade under the provisions of section 8964, Title 10, United States code." The complete AFPC/DPSOR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 Dec 12 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ 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 in regard to the applicant’s stated request. 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 has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The applicant’s grade of airman first class was accurately reflected on her retirement order and is the grade used for retirement pay computations in accordance with policy and law. 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 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-2012-04831 in Executive Session on 16 Jul 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Oct 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 7 Nov 12, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Dec 12.