RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04856 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) on his extended active duty (EAD) orders Special Order AJ-004, dated 6 Oct 06, be corrected so he will receive retired pay as a Captain instead of a Staff Sergeant (SSgt). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His retired pay is incorrectly based upon his final grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt). He initially served in the enlisted force, but then was commissioned and served as an officer for 10 years. When he was not promoted to Major, he was going to be involuntarily separated after 17 years of active service, so he reenlisted in his prior rank of SSgt to finish serving the time remaining until he was retirement eligible. However, rather than receiving retired pay based on his High-3, it is based upon his final grade of SSgt. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 22 Oct 93. On 27 Sep 01, the applicant signed an AF Form 133, Oath of Office, accepting a commission as a second lieutenant. On 2 Oct 11, after having been twice passed over for promotion to the grade of major, he reenlisted in the grade of SSgt, and was ordered to EAD as a recruiter. On 9 Aug 13, the Secretary of the Air Force found the applicant had served satisfactorily in the higher grade of captain and directed he be advanced to that grade on the retired list effective the date of completion of all required service. Under Special Order AC-011361, dated 12 Sep 13, the applicant’s retired grade will be changed to reflect the grade of captain after he has completed the required 30 years of combined active duty and reserve service on 21 Oct 23. On 1 Nov 13, the applicant retired in the grade of SSgt after serving 20 years and 9 days of total active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPSIPE does not make a recommendation. The applicant reverted from officer status to enlisted status and reenlisted as a SSgt after he was twice non-selected to the grade of Major. Per Special Order AC-011361, 12 Sep 13, the applicant’s records will be updated on 22 Oct 13 to reflect the grade of captain, the highest grade in which he satisfactorily served. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant served in the enlisted force with a Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) of 22 Oct 93. He was then ordered to EAD to attend Officer Training School (OTS), effective 27 Sep 01. He was non-selected for promotion to major, which established a mandatory date of separation of 30 Sep 11. Under 10 USC § 8911, a regular or reserve officer must not only have 20 years of active service but must also have a minimum of 10 years of active commissioned service to retire as an officer. The applicant did not have the required 20 years of total active service to qualify for a military retirement, so he reenlisted as a SSgt. Title 10 USC § 8964 does allow the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) to determine a retired member can be advanced to the highest grade held satisfactorily when his time on active duty and on the Retired List combine to total 30 years. On 9 Aug 13, the SecAF determined the applicant would be advanced to the grade of captain when he completes 30 years of combined active duty and reserve service on 21 Oct 23. On 22 Oct 23, DFAS will adjust the applicant’s retired pay to reflect this advancement. Until that date, he is a retired SSgt. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 Jun 15, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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 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 AFPC/DPSOR 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-2014-04856 in Executive Session on 8 Sep 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Nov 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIPE, dated 13 Mar 15, w/atchs. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 9 Apr 15, w/atchs. Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jun 15.