RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00277
            INDEX CODE: 112.02

      XXXXXX     COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXX     HEARING DESIRED: No

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

A determination be made as to a "fair" and "just" accounting  of  what
his current grade should be, what promotion  opportunities  he  should
have or would have had, what grade he will retire as, and any monetary
compensation due him.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The original enlistment reflected his grade as E-3 (airman first class
(A1C))  dependent  upon  resignation  of  his  commission  as  a   2nd
lieutenant.  The paperwork was  destroyed  in  his  presence  and  the
recruiter's signature was forged and  reaccomplished  to  reflect  the
grade of E-2 (airman).  He was a commissioned officer  and  discharged
as one.  However, he is considered "Non-Prior"  service  for  entrance
into the Air Force.  It was years  later  that  he  learned  that  his
enlistment was to fulfill a quota (Non-Prior service)  as  opposed  to
one which would have  benefited  the  Air  Force  and  himself  (Prior
service).

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a chronology of events and
supporting documentation.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of E-6 (technical sergeant (TSgt)).

On 6 May 1977, applicant enlisted in the Iowa,  Army  National  Guard.
He was honorably discharged on 28 August 1980  in  the  grade  of  E-5
(sergeant (Sgt)) and transferred to the Illinois Army  National  Guard
(ILARNG).

Applicant attended Illinois Military Academy (Officer Candidate School
(OCS)) from 16 May 1981 to 26  June  1982.   He  was  administratively
promoted to E-6 (staff sergeant (SSgt)).

On 27 June 1982, applicant was appointed  a  2nd  Lieutenant,  ILARNG,
Service Battery, Rock Island, Ill.

In April 1983, applicant attended the Field  Artillery  Officer  Basic
Course (OBC) - Reserve Component 1-83, Ft Sill, OK and graduated on 24
June 1983.

Effective 1 November 1983, applicant transferred to A Battery,  Galva,
Ill, Fire Direction Officer and Executive Officer.

On 4 April 1985, he enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade  of
E-2 (airman) for a period of 4 years as a Non-Prior service person and
attained the grade of TSgt on 1 November 1997.

On 1 June 1985, he was honorably  discharged  from  ILARNG,  Executive
Officer, and transferred to the United  States  Army  Reserve  Control
Group - Inactive and Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).

On 14 April 1994, applicant was  notified  by  the  Chief,  Office  of
Promotions, Reserve Components, US Total Army Personnel Command,  that
APPLICANT, by the Direction of the President, he was promoted  to  1st
lieutenant, Reserve Commissioned Officer of  the  Army,  effective  15
August 1986.

On 20 May 1996, he was honorably discharged from  United  States  Army
Reserve, in the grade of 1st Lieutenant.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Skills Management Branch, Dir of Pers  Program  Management,
AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed this application and states that at the  time  of
the applicant's enlistment,  enlistees  having  never  served  or  who
served less than 180 continuous calendar days as a member of a Regular
component of the Armed Forces were classified for  Regular  Air  Force
(RegAF) enlistment purposes  as  Non-Prior  Service  (NPS)  enlistees.
Personnel in this category enlisted in the grade  airman  basic  (E-1)
with a date of rank (DOR) equal to their  RegAF  date  of  enlistment,
unless qualified for grade credit under the provisions  of  Table  2-2
AFR 33-3, Enlistment in the United States Air Force.  Since  applicant
had completed at least  20  semesters  hours  of  college  credit,  he
qualified for enlistment grade E-2  (airman).   The  enlistment  grade
provision is included on the Enlistment Agreement (Non-Prior Service),
AF Form 3007, Section I, Item  B,  which  applicant  acknowledged  (by
initialing)
on date of enlistment.  Accordingly, his enlistment in  the  RegAF  in
the grade airman (E-2), effective and with DOR of  4  April  1985,  is
correct and in compliance with policy.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and  states  that  his
concern is that an individual presenting a "High School Junior Officer
Reserve Training Corps (JROTC) Certificate  of  Completion"  would  be
entitled to the grade of E-3 (A1C), while an Army Reserve Officer such
as himself, having completed OCS and  OBC  would  not.   His  original
paperwork, which was ripped up in front of him and forged by the MEPPS
individual, reflected the  grade  of  E-3.   When  he  questioned  the
individual as to the validity of forging the recruiter's name, he  was
told "The bus is leaving, you're on it or  you're  walking  home  (250
miles)."  He signed, hoping to resolve this with  someone  else.   The
larger consideration is the injustice of having held a commission  and
being entered into the Air Force as an E-2 (airman).   This  grade  is
normally for someone  who  has  never  completed  any  type  of  basis
training, let alone all the training he received prior to entry in the
Air  Force.   He  has  pursued  resolution  to  the  enlistment  grade
determination over several years and has not received a response until
recently.   Part  of  it  might  be  the  unfamiliarity  of   enlisted
individuals dealing with officer type matters.  It was only  until  he
brought this issue to the  attention  of  the  58  Special  Operations
Inspector General (IG) that he received a  response.   He  cares  very
much for his Air Force and would never do anything to bring  discredit
on it.  Bringing this matter to the IG's attention felt like his  last
resort.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Skills Management Branch, Dir of Pers  Program  Management,
AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed this application and states  that  the  applicant
has not provided any additional documentation to  support  his  theory
that his previous commissioned service by  itself  qualifies  him  for
enlistment as a prior service accession.  Nonetheless, review  of  the
regulation in effect at that time  indicates  his  enlistment  was  in
accordance with Air Force policy.

AFR 33-3, Enlistment in the United States Air Force, Chapter 1,  dated
18 January 1985, outlines the  qualifications  for  enlistment  (prior
service and non-prior service) in the Regular Air Force.

      "Non-prior Service (NPS).  Persons who have never served or  who
have served less than 180 continuous calendar  days  as  a  member  of
Regular component of the Armed Forces."

      "Prior Service (PS).   Persons  who  have  served  180  or  more
continuous calendar days as a member of a  Regular  component  of  the
United States Armed Forces.  Applicants separated as  service  academy
cadets or reservists whose total active service consists of an initial
tour of active duty for training (ACFUTRA), are considered NPS."

The applicant's case file indicates he did not at any time serve in  a
Regular component  of  the  Armed  Forces.   As  such,  based  on  the
referenced AFR 33-3, he did not qualify  for  enlistment  as  a  prior
service accession, regardless of his service as a commissioned officer
in the National Guard and Army Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).

Review of the  interservice  transfer  (IST)  Regulation,  AFR  35-39,
Interservice and Intraservice Transfer of Uniformed Services  Members,
Section A, dated 3 September 1982, indicates the  applicant  was  also
not qualified for an IST.  AFR 35-39, para 1f,  states,  "Interservice
transfer.  Refers to the transfer of commissioned officers serving  on
active duty, between the Uniformed Services."  An explanation  of  the
Uniformed Services is also provided in paragraph 11 of AFR 35-39.   It
states, "Uniformed Services or Uniformed Services Component.   A  term
used to denote collectively, the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine  Corps,
Coast Guard, and the National Oceanic and  Atmospheric  Administration
Commissioned Corps."  Based on the above criteria for the IST program,
the applicant's commission in the National Guard and the Army IRR  did
not give him status in the Uniformed Services that  was  necessary  to
qualify for an IST to the Air Force.

AFPC/DPPAE further states that the applicant has not provided evidence
to substantiate his contention that his enlistment grade is  incorrect
nor the existence of an error or injustice in  the  execution  of  his
enlistment contract.  His grade was determined based on  existing  Air
Force policy and his initials on the enlistment documents indicate  he
was fully aware that his enlistment grade would be E-2  (airman),  and
acknowledged he had no claim to any higher grade.  As such,  it  would
not be justified to allow the applicant grade credit not  provided  to
other enlistees.  They recommend applicant's request be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with  attachment,  is  attached  at
Exhibit F.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states  that  when
he read the AFRs and AFIs used to determine enlistment eligibility and
grade determination he finds that they are  an  attempt  to  determine
"just compensation."  That compensation is reflected in  credit  being
given for college hours completed, ROTC  training  and  Boy  Scout  of
America awards earned.  He believes these  all  to  be  a  measure  of
compensation, a  means  by  which  to  make  a  determination  of  the
experience and capability of the enlistee.  If an individual is to  be
compensated with a higher grade for  completion  of  pre-commissioning
type training (i.e., College/High School  ROTC);  however,  deny  that
compensation to someone who was actually  commissioned,  he  does  not
believe this to be just.  The regulations and instructions are a  tool
and as  such  probably  cover  99.7%  of  the  enlistment  population.
However, what about the other .03%?  In the interests of  being  just,
it is just to deny the rights of that .03% for the good of that 99.7%?
 He does not believe it.  He believes  that  AFPC  and  his  recruiter
tried to be just and award compensation to him by the grade  of   E-3.
This was reflected in his original enlistment  contract  completed  at
the recruiter's office in Moline, Ill (April 1985),  not  the  forgery
completed at the MEPS station.  He was assured at that  time  that  if
there was an error  that  it  would  be  corrected.   He  signed  that
contract in good faith, and for 14 years he has tried  to  do  correct
that error.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit H.




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 probable 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 the Air Force
and adopt their 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 probable  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 30 November 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

      Panel Chair
      Member
      Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jan 99, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 12 Mar 99.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Mar 99.
      Exhibit E. Applicant's Response, dated 13 Apr 99.
      Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 23 Aug 99, w/atch.
      Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Sep 99.
      Exhibit H. Applicant's Response, dated 19 Sep 99.





                             Panel Chair