RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-01404
            INDEX NUMBER:  112.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of rank (DOR) to the grade of staff  sergeant  be  changed
from 12 September 1996 to 1 May  1993,  the  DOR  held  during  his
previous Regular Air Force enlistment.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He separated on his established date of  separation  (DOS)  [5  May
1998] from his previous Regular Air Force enlistment to assist  his
ailing parents.  Subsequently, both of his parents were overcome by
their medical problems and died that same year.

In December 1998, seven months after his separation,  he  made  the
decision to return to the Air Force  on  active  duty.   He  was  a
member of the Air Force Reserve during the period Feb (sic) and Dec
1998.  At no time did his recruiter discuss or even mention a  loss
of time in grade (TIG).  The recruiter said that his  Total  Active
Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) would  change,  but  nothing
else.  The loss  of  his  TIG  significantly  affects  his  efforts
towards future promotions.

Applicant’s complete statement and documentation in support of  his
appeal are at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to the events under review, the applicant  served  on  active
duty in enlisted status in the Regular Air Force during the  period
17  November  1986  through  5  May  1998.   At  the  time  of  his
separation, he was serving in the grade of staff sergeant,  with  a
date of rank and effective date of 1 May 1993.

Information provided by the applicant reflects that he enlisted  in
the Air Force Reserve  on  6  May  1998,  in  the  grade  of  staff
sergeant, with a date of rank of 1 May 1993.

On 12 March 1999, applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a
period of four years, in the grade of staff sergeant.  His adjusted
date of rank was established as 12 September 1996.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed this application
and recommended denial.  DPPAE stated that the DOR  is  established
by backdating the enlistment date in the Regular Air Force equal to
one-half of the member’s previous time  in  grade  when  enlistment
date  is  before  the  second  anniversary  of  Regular  Air  Force
separation.  Based on their calculation, the applicant’s DOR should
be 9 September 1996.  Appropriate action has been taken  to  update
his record.

DPPAE contacted the  recruiter  who  processed  the  applicant  for
reentry on active duty.  He stated  that,  to  his  knowledge,  the
applicant did not inquire about his reentry DOR, and since DORs are
calculated at Air Force Recruiting Service, the recruiter would not
have been equipped to discuss it with the applicant.

DPPAE contacted the Military Entrance and Processing Station (MEPS)
to determine recruiting procedures.  The senior Air Force counselor
advised that, as  a  matter  of  policy,  the  MEPS  provides  each
enlistee their DOR and the AFI 36-2604 reference  to  back  it  up.
There is no evidence to indicate  the  applicant  was  miscounseled
during his enlistment processing.

One of the considerations governing the prior  service  program  is
promotion equity for RegAF members who have continuously served  on
active duty.  It would be unfair to these members,  who  remain  in
the RegAF with no break in service, to allow those who  voluntarily
choose to separate to retain their entire time in grade.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant stated that when he was  processing  his  paperwork,  the
recruiter told him that he would keep his rank because if  the  Air
Force took a stripe he would be high-year tenure (HYT) and not
allowed back in the Air Force.  After being told he would keep  his
rank of staff sergeant, he had no reason to inquire about his  DOR.
He interpreted the recruiter’s statement to mean he would keep  his
full rank.  If the recruiter knew his DOR was going to  change,  he
had a duty to tell him.  Also, the MEPS station never  gave  him  a
copy of AFI 36-2604 referencing this issue.  As  indicated  in  the
attached letter from the Air Force counselor at the  MEPS  station,
he [applicant] was not aware of  his  new  DOR  until  the  day  he
enlisted and was leaving for Keesler.

Applicant’s complete statement, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

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.
Applicant’s contentions that at no time did his  recruiter  discuss
or even mention a loss of time in grade (TIG)  and  that  the  MEPS
station never gave him a copy of AFI 36-2604 referencing this issue
are duly noted.  However,  we  do  not  find  these  uncorroborated
arguments,  in  and  of  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive   to
override the rationale expressed by the Air Force.   After  careful
review of the evidence provided, we found no evidence showing  that
the adjustment of applicant’s date of rank (DOR) at the time of his
reentry into the Regular Air Force was contrary  to  the  governing
regulation and policy in effect at the time or that he was  treated
differently than others who were similarly situated.  We  therefore
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air  Force  office
of primary responsibility 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 16 November 1999, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
      Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 May 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 24 Jun 99.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 26 Jul 99.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Aug 99, w/atch.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair