RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2021-03293

XXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING REQUESTED: YES

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be amended to reflect her grade as staff sergeant (E-5) versus senior airman (E-4).

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

Her DD Form 214 reflects she retired as an E-4; however, she was promoted to E-5 prior to being medically retired.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a medically retired Air Force senior airman (E-4). 

On 28 May 19, the applicant was relieved from active duty in the grade of E-4, and furnished a DD Form 214 with a narrative reason for separation of Disability, Temporary Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES).  She was credited with 4 years, 7 months, and 28 days of active service.  

On 29 May 19, according to Special Order Number XXX – XXXXX, dated 5 Mar 19, the applicant was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List, in the grade of E-5, with a compensable percentage of 100% for physical disability.  

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

AFI 36-3202, Separation Documents, governs instructions for completion of the DD Form 214, and directs the DD Form 214 reflect the active duty grade held at the time of separation.

Under Title 10, USC 1372, a member is entitled to be retired in the grade to which he or she would have been promoted had it not been for the physical disability for which he or she is retired.  

AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement and Separation. DFAS-Cleveland (CL) determines disability retired pay. DFAS-CL may use two different formulas for computing retired pay and may base computation on years of creditable service or on percentage of disability, whichever is more advantageous to the service member. In addition, if an Airman is entitled to pay computation under some other provision of law that would result in greater retired pay, DFAS-CL makes that computation. DFAS-CL selects the one more favorable, unless the service member specifically requests that retired pay be computed at some lower rate authorized by law.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DPFFD recommends denying the application.  Based on a review of the documentation provided and analysis of the facts, there is no evidence of error or injustice. Although the applicant was disability retired as an E-5, her official personnel records would not reflect this because she did not pin-on E-5 prior to her date of separation. Her DD Form 214 reflects the highest rank held (E-4) as of her date of separation.   

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 25 Apr 22 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DPFDD and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.  

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2021-03293 in Executive Session on 14 Jun 22:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:
Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 13 Sep 21.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, AFPC/DPFDD, w/atchs, dated 22 Apr 22.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 25 Apr 22.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.