RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-04857
						COUNSEL: NONE
	 					HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

Her Reserve retired pay grade be changed from Technical Sergeant (TSgt, E6) to Master Sergeant (MSgt, E7).
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She received Reserve Order 168, dated 6 Mar 08, discharging her in the grade of MSgt.  However, when she applied for retirement 
she was told the order on file with the same number reflected her discharge was in the grade of TSgt. 

During the year of her inappropriate behavior, she stopped taking her antidepressant medication and was self-medicating.  
She was demoted to the grade of TSgt and was recommended for placement in an inactive status.  She requests her creditable 
service in the grade of MSgt prior to 2006 be accepted to determine her retired grade for pay.  

In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of Reserve Order A-168, dated 6 Mar 08, a letter from ARPC/DPTSA 
dated 20 Sep 13, Medical Narrative Summary (NARSUM), Reserve Order EL 1892, dated 8 Feb 13, and a Retiree Account Statement (RAS).

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to Reserve Order A-0564, dated 13 Feb 07, the applicant was administratively demoted to the grade of TSgt 
while a member of the Air Force Reserve under the provisions of AFI 36-2503, Administrative Demotion of Airmen.  The specific 
reason for the demotion was drug abuse.  

According to Reserve Order A-168, dated 6 Mar 08, she was 
discharged from the Air Force Reserve effective 20 Mar 08, in 
the grade of TSgt with service characterized as general (under 
honorable conditions).
According to Reserve Order EL 1892, dated 8 Feb 13, she was 
authorized retired pay Per Title 10, Section 12732 effective 
16 Jul 13 (her 60th birthday) and was placed on the Air Force 
Retired list in the grade of TSgt (highest grade satisfactorily 
held).  She served 27 years and 4 days of satisfactory service 
for basic pay.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPTTR recommends denial.  The highest grade satisfactorily 
held is the grade of TSgt.  A highest grade held determination 
was not completed and the applicant’s Reserve retired pay was 
established in the grade of TSgt.  ARPC can only change the 
retirement grade when the lower grade was not the result of 
misconduct.  

The applicant was promoted to the grade of MSgt effective 1 Nov 
00; however, she was demoted on 13 Feb 07, to the grade of TSgt 
with a Date of Rank (DOR) and effective date of 13 Feb 07 for 
drug abuse. Recommend that the applicant’s retirement grade 
satisfactory held be TSgt.

The complete DPTTR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit 
B.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 10 Jan 14, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C).  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 error or injustice. After 
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s 
records should be changed as requested.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed 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 Docket Number BC-2013-04857 in Executive Session on 7 Aug 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

       , Panel Chair
       , Member
       , Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered:   

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Sep 13, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPTTR, dated 20 Dec 13, w/atchs.  
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 14. 
1 2