AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01586
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that his enlistment grade be changed from
airman first class to sergeant. Applicant's submission is at
Exhibit A.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request
and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the
application be denied (Exhibit C ) .
The advisory opinion was
forwarded to the applicant f o r review and response (Exhibit D).
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
After careful consideration of applicant's request and the
available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of
error or injustice to warrant corrective action. The facts and
opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the
evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which
entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or
appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to
disturb the existing record.
Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
Applicant should a l s o be informed that this decision is final and
will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant
evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the
application was filed.
Members of the Board Mr. Henry C. Saunders, Ms. Ann L. Heidig,
and Ms. Sophie A. Clark considered this application on 10 Dec 98
in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 3 6 -
2603 and the governing statute, 10
Exhibits :
A. Applicantls DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
DEPARTMENT O F THE A I R FORCE
H E A D Q U A R T E R S A I R F O R C E P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R
R A N D O L P H A I R F O R C E B A S E T E X A S
. 0 7
-. JUL 7998
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPCDPPAE
550 C Street West, Ste 10
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-4712
The applicant requests change of enlistment grade from AlC (E-3) to S g t (E-4). He
alleges that, although his active duty reserve time qualified him to enter the Air Force as a Prior-
Service (PS) enlistee, he was brought on as a Non-Prior-Service (NPS) enlistee.
At the time of applicant’s enlistment, those enlistees never having served in a Regular
component of the Armed Forces were classified for Regular Air Force enlistment purposes as
NPS enlistees. Enlistment grades were determined by the N P S grade policy and DOR was the
date of enlistment in the Regular Air Force. Active service in the Reserve component was not
creditable for DOR in the Regular Air Force. The enlistment pay grade provision is included on
the Enlistment Agreement, AF Form 3006, Section lI(b), which applicant acknowledged on his
date of enlistment. The governing directive for the NPS program at the time of applicant’s
enlistment was AFR 33-3, Enlistment in the United States Air Force, Chapters 1 and 2, and
Table 3-2 specified NPS grade policy requirements.
A reservist with more than 90 days active service who separates in pay grade E-2 or
higher from a reserve component is authorized enlistment pay grade E-2. However, applicant
was awarded enlistment pay grade E-3 as an exception to policy since he enlisted for six years in
a guaranteed AFSC.
Applicant’s enlistment in the RegAF in pay grade E-3, effective and with DOR
3 Mar 80, is correct and in compliance with policy. We recommend denial of member’s request
for enlistment grade correction.
Chief, Skills Mangement Branch
Dir of Pers Program Management
..
c. Applicant signed an Enlistment Agreement (AF Form 3006) =on I1 Sep 95, which clearly stated: “My enlistment in the Regular Air Force is for 4 years of active duty. 104-106, g602(cKdX1), :torily: Reserve enlisted :e not as a result of the i the Air Force described in tion 8914 of this title shall ade in which the member in the case of a member of ber served on full-time Na- ermined by the Secretary of : enlisted member who- 1520 i 1521 CH. Higher grade after 30 years of service: warrant...
The AETCI, dated 14 Apr 95, stated that prior service personnel enlisting as recruiters would retain the DOR held on their previous enlistment. On 30 Jan 96, HQ AFRSRSO released a PROMIS message correcting the policy on recruiter enlistees to coincide with the policy for other prior-service accessions (the revised AETCI 36-2002, published 1 Oct 97, reflects the change). Applicant provides copies of his enlistment order (SO 145-5) reflecting his enlistment DOR as 20 Jul95, an amendment to...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the application was filed. Applicant bases his request for changing his DOR on a “missed promotion board.” The applicant entered active duty on 27 Jul97.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98- 01569 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under t h e a u t h o r i t y of S e c t i o n 1552, T i t l e 1 0 , U n i t e d S t a t e s Code, and A i r F o r c e I n s t r u c t i o n 36-2603, and h a v i n g a s s u r e d c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e above r e g u l a t i o n , t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e A i r F o r c e Board f o r C o r r e c t i o n of M i l i t a r...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). He has not filed a timely request.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Office of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPAES reviewed this appeal and states that applicant should have been extended from 9 April 1996 to 30 January 1998. Instead, he should be extended beginning 10 April 1996 and ending on 30 January 1998, compensated as discussed in the advisory opinion (with no pay for the period 7 June to 11 July 1996) , and allowed to extend for one promotion cycle beyond his projected HYT date. He received no pay and allowances...
Director I/ Air Force Review Boards Agency AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01544 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), Second Oak Leaf Cluster (20LC), for the period 10 Jul 91 to 1 Jul 96, be considered in the promotion process for cycle 9737 to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98). DPPPWB states that there is no tangible evidence the...
Upon implementation of DOD Directive 1310.1, Rank and Seniority of Commissioned Officers, effective 1 Oct 96, all reserve officers on the Reserve Active Status List in transition from the reserves to active duty, would retain the date of rank they held in their reserve unit. Sections 12207, 12320, 14002, 14003, and 143 17 of reference (b) to establish policies governing the determination of the dates of rank and precedence of commissioned offi- cers on the Reserve Active Status List. at...
98-00223 AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Deputy Director of Customer Assistance, ARPC/DR, reviewed this application and states that the member states that when he received the RCSBP information it was close to his Continuous Active Military Service Date and he incorrectly interpreted the suspense date to be 90 days from that date. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the...
I 4 By letters dated 7 August 1997, 26 October 1997, 9 December 1997, and 16 February 1998, applicant requested reconsideration of his He provided copies of documentation submitted with his appeal. 3 AFBCMR 91-01962 JAJM recommended that the Board deny the applicant's request: (1) on the basis that it is untimely; (2) on the merits; and ( 3 ) because it does not meet the criteria for reconsideration. Applicant contends that his SF Form 88, Report of Medical Examination, dated 16 August...