RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04986
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His retired pay rate should be calculated based on the grade of Master Sergeant (MSgt).
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Currently, his pay rate is being calculated at the rate of a Technical Sergeant (TSgt); however, he was a MSgt for seven years.

He held the rank of MSgt before he was demoted to the grade of TSgt for the last five months of his career.  He served as a MSgt from Jun 06 to Mar 13.  

He entered active duty after 7 Sep 80; so his retired pay rate should be calculated using an average of the 36 highest monthly basic pay rates.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his enlisted grade determination instrument; Defense Finance and 
Accounting Services (DFAS), Summary of Retired Pay Account; retirement order, and various other supporting documents.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 4 Dec 91, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years.

On 13 Mar 13, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment for violation of Article 107.  As part of his punishment, he 
received a reduction to the grade of TSgt.  

On 31 Aug 13, the applicant was relieved from active duty and 
retired from the Air Force with a reason for separation of 
voluntary retirement: maximum service or time in grade; in the 
grade of TSgt.  He was credited with 21 years, 8 months, and 
27 days of active duty service.

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR states that there is no 
error or injustice in the applicant's record.  On 13 Mar 13, the 
applicant accepted non-judicial punishment for violation of 
Article 107.  As part of his punishment, he received a reduction 
to the grade of TSgt.  The applicant believes 10 U.S.C. 
§l407(f)(3), Special Rule for Enlisted Members, applies and 
should authorize him a higher amount of retirement pay.

To qualify for this special rule, the applicant had to regain 
the higher grade prior to retirement.  A review of the 
applicant's record indicates that as of the retirement date, 
1 Aug 13 [sic], he was not promoted to a higher grade following 
his reduction in 2013, and was retired in the grade of TSgt. 
Since the applicant did not regain the lost promotion prior to 
his retirement date, 10 U .S.C. §1407(f)(3) does not apply.  
However, because of the applicant's reduction in grade, the SAF 
reviewed his case and determined the applicant served 
satisfactorily in the higher grade of MSgt.  The SAF directed he 
be advanced to that grade within the meaning of Section 8964, 
Title 10, United States Code.

The applicant will be advanced to the grade of MSgt on the 
retired list, effective 04 Dec 21, as directed by the Secretary 
of the Air Force (SAF).  In addition, the applicant's retired 
pay will be adjusted at that time.  

The complete DPSOR evaluation 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 14 Mar 14 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.  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 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-2013-04986 in Executive Session on 19 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 21 Oct 13, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 28 Feb 14.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Mar 14.
3 4