THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: by Fp05N61

VIEWS: 10 PAGES: 3

									                      RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
       AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00938
                                 INDEX CODE: 121.00
                                 COUNSEL: NONE

  XXXXXXX                        HEARING DESIRED:   NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 30 SEPTEMBER 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His retired pay account be reviewed.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He does not know if he received a pay raise in October 1971.

In support of his application, applicant provided a personal
letter.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was placed on the retired list pursuant to the
provisions of Title 10, USC, section 8914 effective 1 February
1971 in the grade of master sergeant. His retired pay was
computed based on the active duty basic pay rates that became
effective 1 January 1971. The active duty basic pay for an MSgt
with 20 years of service was $642.80 at that time. His initial
retired pay entitlement was $326.40 ($652.80 X 50%), which was
increased effective 1 June 1971 to 328.36 based on the cost of
living increase. His current pay entitlement is $1566.00 and is
correct. Unfortunately, DFAS does not have the 1984 Navy Times
article that was referenced, so DFAS cannot comment on what it
might have stated. DFAS is aware that President Nixon delayed the
active duty pay increase that was to be effective on October 1,
1972 to January 1, 1973. This decision was later overturned by
the Supreme Court, and all affected members had their pay
corrected. However, members on the retired rolls at that time
were not affected by this. Retired pay is increased based on cost
of living increases, not by the increases to active duty pay.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

DFAS recommends denial and states that there is no evidence of
any error, and no correction is authorized.

DFAS's complete Air Force 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 5 May 2006 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________
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 an injustice. We took
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the
merits of the case to include his contention that he did not
receive a pay raise in October 1971; 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 compelling 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-
2006-00938 in Executive Session on 6 June 2006, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:


                                2
   Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
   Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
   Mr. Eddie C. Lewis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit   A.   DD Form 149, dated 20 Mar 06.
   Exhibit   B.   Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit   C.   Letter, DFAS, dated 28 Apr 06.
   Exhibit   D.   Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 May 06.




                                      JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                      Panel Chair




                                  3

								
To top