RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02621
            INDEX CODE: 112.02

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED: No


Applicant requests that his pay  status  be  changed  from  0-1  to    0-1E.
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  for
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, the majority of the Board  finds  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, the majority  finds
no basis to disturb the existing record.

Accordingly, a majority of the Board finds insufficient  evidence  of  error
or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

The  Board  staff  is  directed  to  inform  applicant  of  this   decision.
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.

Members of the Board Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein,  and
Mr. Charles E. Bennett, considered  this  application  on  26  May  1999  in
accordance with the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603, and the governing  statute,  10,  U.S.C.  1552.   By  a
majority vote,  the  Board  recommended  denial  of  the  application.   Mr.
Bennett voted to correct the records and has  submitted  a  minority  report
which is attached at Exhibit E.





                                     THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                     Panel Chair

Exhibits:

A.  Applicant's DD Form 149
B.  Available Master Personnel Records
C.  Advisory Opinion
D.  AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
E.  Minority Report

AFBCMR 98-02621





MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                 FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant had
not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the
case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that
relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that
the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency



MEMORANDUM FOR THE DIRECTOR FOR AIR FORCE REVIEW BOARDS AGENCY

SUBJECT:

      On 26 May 1999, a panel of the Air Force Board for Correction of
Military Records (AFBCMR) met in Executive Session to consider the case of
Dwight M. Chambers.  As a result of careful review of all the circumstances
of this case, I do not agree with the majority of the panel that Lieutenant
Chambers’ request should be denied.  He requests that he receive 0-1E pay
grade status based on his prior service as an enlisted member in the Army.

      The record shows that Lieutenant Chambers served exactly 4 years in
the Army.  The DoD Financial Management Regulation, para 10105(a) grants
special rate of pay to officers in pay grades of 0-1, 0-2 or 0-3 with over
4 years of active service as an enlisted member.  In my view, the DoD
Financial Management Regulation is not clear on the meaning of over 4 years
and, as a result, is misleading.  Lieutenant Chambers served 4 years and
separated to attend the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps College
Scholarship Program (AFROTC) with the belief that he would receive the
special rate of pay of 0-1E upon entering active duty with the Air Force.
Although Lieutenant Chambers does not submit any statements in support of
his request that he receive O-1E pay based on prior military service, I
believe the intent of the law is to include those members who not only
served over 4 years, but also those who have served exactly 4 years.  To
understand the reason for this belief, one has to examine the intent of the
legislation and the situation with the military at that time.  The military
was losing many of its experienced personnel as the enlistees were
departing after their initial four-year enlistment, and were not extending
for a lifelong career in the military.  The military desperately needed to
maintain this actual combat experience.  The majority of people who are
targeted with this legislation are the enlistees who have exactly four
years of service.  Very few people have a first term enlistment of five
years, six years or eight years or even for four years and one day.  They
are usually exactly four years.  If anyone suspected this was going to
create a problem, they could have asked to extend for one additional day,
or week, or month.

      As an incentive, departing enlistees, were encouraged to use their GI
bill for a college education and then to come back into the military where
they would be rewarded and compensated for their prior military experience
(as well as compensation to offset the increased expenses of spouse and
children).  This
reward would not just be a commission as a new second lieutenant, like a
green newcomer straight from college who went to college side-by-side with
him and who had never seen combat or the military, added to the beginning
of his career as an officer.  All enlisted personnel are, correctly or
incorrectly, led to believe this is the case while they are serving their
first four years of enlistment.

      When the legislation was printed, I believe the pay table was labeled
"over four years" instead of "four years or more" as an oversight or for
expediency and ease of printing.  This kind of oversight is sometimes made
when printing laws and regulations.

      This is illustrated in an example explained by the General Council.
In Public Law 85-422 the pay table was originally printed as "under 2
years" of service and "over 2 years" of service. There was no provision for
"exactly 2 years."  Clearly, this was a mistake.  As the General Council
points out, this anomaly has since been corrected. But, not before numerous
people pointed out that there is a difference.  The "over four year rule"
affects only a very, very small number of people and therefore gets very
little attention or support.

      Based on this discussion, I vote to grant Lieutenant Chambers'
request to receive O-1E pay.





                 CHARLES E. BENNETT

Attachment
Letter, SAF/GCM, dated 22 March 1993