RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04083 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, effective 31 January 2004, be corrected to reflect master sergeant (E-7) instead of technical sergeant (E-6). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was demoted from E-7 to E-6 just prior to his retirement. However, he was later granted advancement to the grade of E-7 which is reflected in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) and on his military retiree identification card (ID). Nevertheless, the rank and grade of technical sergeant (E-6) is reflected on his DD Form 214. The discrepancy in his rank and grade causes problems when applying for government employment. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 18 January 1984. According to the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS), the applicant was promoted to the grade of E-7, effective 1 November 1999. On 20 March 2003, the applicant’s commander found he committed an offense under Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and imposed punishment consisting of reduction to the grade of E-6 and a reprimand. On 28 March 2003, according to special orders AC-007762, the applicant would be relieved from active duty, effective 31 January 2004 and retired effective 1 February 2004 in the grade of master sergeant. On 22 October 2003, according to special orders AC-000726, the applicant’s special orders AC-007762 was rescinded. On 24 October 2003, according to special orders AC-000832, the applicant would be relieved from active duty, effective 31 January 2004 and retired effective 1 February 2004 in the grade of technical sergeant. On 31 January 2004, the applicant retired in the grade of E-6 and was credited with 20 years and 13 days of active service. On 12 April 2004, according to special orders AC-007945, the applicant’s special orders AC-000832 was amended by direction of the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF). Specifically, in accordance with Title 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) Sections 8964 and 8992, effective 18 January 2014, the applicant was advanced to the grade of master sergeant on the retired list by reason of completing a term of 30 years active service plus service on the retired list on 17 January 2014. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. The applicant’s DD Form 214 accurately reflects the active duty grade/pay grade of technical sergeant (E-6). Governing directives, Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1336.01, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214/5 Series), Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3202, Separation Documents, or policy do not authorize the entry of projected grades or advancements that have an effective date after the date range for which the DD Form 214 is prepared. Under Title 10 USC § 8964, the applicant’s advancement to the previously held grade of master sergeant (E-7), effective 18 January 2014, is for the purpose of retired pay and benefits. The applicant failed to provide evidence that the publication of the DD Form 214 is in error and not in compliance with governing directives and policy. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR 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 17 February 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an 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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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-2014-04083 in Executive Session on 28 April 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 September 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 6 January 2015. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 February 2015.