RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-03028

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of rank (DOR) to SSgt (E-5) be corrected from 29 Feb 00 to  2
Nov 97, his DOR when he served in the Air National  Guard  (ANG);  his
extended active duty (EAD) date reflect 2 Mar 99 vice 29 Feb  00,  and
his Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) tests for the  00E6  cycle
to TSgt (E-6) be scored.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is entitled to keep his 2 Nov 97 DOR as outlined  in  AFI  36-2604,
Service Dates and Dates of Rank, para 8.6. “Reserve members serving on
EAD with the RegAF who are discharged from an Active Reserve Component
(ARC) for immediate reenlistment in the RegAF keep the same  DOR  they
held on discharge, provided they meet the TAFMS criteria for the grade
they are serving.” His  extended  active  duty  time  began  with  the
Regular Air Force on 2 Mar 99 and ended 29 Feb 00,  therefore  meeting
the Air Force requirements to WAPS test.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

A review of applicant’s military records reflects that  prior  to  the
time period in question, he served in the following components:

        U.S. Navy         28 Jan 87 - 1 Apr 88    General Discharge
        U.S. Army         31 Dec 90 - 7 Oct 91    Honorable Discharge
    U.S. Coast Guard  31 Oct 91 - 29 Apr 94   Honorable Discharge

The Personnel Data System reflects that the applicant’s  Total  Active
Federal Service Date is 12 Dec 92.  Applicant enlisted in the  Regular
Air Force on 29 Dec 00 for a period of four (4) years, in the grade of
staff sergeant (E-5).  At the time of enlistment, the applicant signed
AF Form 3006, Enlistment Agreement, indicating that he understood that
he had no claim to a higher grade and that his date of  rank  was  his
date of enlistment.

On 23 Aug 00 the applicant  was  administered  the  Promotion  Fitness
Examination (PFE) and Specialty Knowledge  Test  (SKT)  for  promotion
cycle 00E6 to  TSgt.   He  was  apparently  ineligible  for  promotion
consideration to TSgt because in order to be eligible to test for that
cycle, he needed a DOR prior to 1 Aug 98  and  had  to  have  been  on
active duty by the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) of 31  Dec
99.

At present, the applicant’s date entered active duty and date of  rank
is 29 Feb 00.  The applicant’s DOR was established in accordance  with
AFI 36-2604, Service Dates and Dates of Rank, para  8.3,  that  states
members receive a DOR equal to their  date  of  enlistment  when  they
enlist in a pay grade higher than the grade held at separation from  a
regular  component  due  to  promotion  while  serving  in  a  reserve
component.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Skills  Management  Branch,  AFPC/DPPAE,   reviewed   the
application and recommended denial.  The applicant provides an excerpt
from AFI 36-2604, Service Dates and Dates of Rank,  and  contends  his
situation fits within the parameters of para 8.6 and is entitled to  a
2 Nov 97 DOR.  This paragraph applies to reserve members serving  with
the RegAF on extended active duty (EAD) under Title  10,  U.S.C.   The
applicant was serving on orders issued by the ANG to attend  a  course
of instruction under Title 32, U.S.C.  The  applicant  entered  active
duty after signing a binding contract that established a 29 Feb 00 DOR
and also initialed and signed to  indicate  he  fully  understood  and
accepted  the  terms  of  his  enlistment  agreement.   There  is   no
indication he was misled into enlisting with the RegAF.

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

The Chief Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the  request
and recommended denial.  The applicant’s DOR was 29 Feb 00, well after
the 1 Aug 98 DOR required.  The applicant must  have  been  on  active
duty on 31 Dec 99 to be eligible.  He entered active duty 29  Feb  00,
well after the date required.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 12 Jan 01 for review and response.  Applicant states that
the Military Entrance Processing Station issued  him  Official  Orders
that reflected a DOR of 2 Nov 97  acknowledging  that  the  Air  Force
accepted his original DOR as established by the  Air  National  Guard.
He felt this to be an orally contractual agreement since it was placed
in official written orders.  Furthermore, applicant states that he had
a five level Primary Air Force Specialty Code (PAFSC) by the PECD  and
was recommended by his commander for testing on 23 Aug  00.   He  also
contends that Special Order AM-74 placed him on active duty from 8 Jun
99 to  30 Mar 00, therefore, his extended active duty (EAD) is  on  or
after the respective cycle, 31 Dec 99.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that his DOR for SSgt and EAD should be changed from  2  Feb
00.  The applicant is  also  ineligible  for  promotion  consideration
because he needed a DOR prior to 1 Aug 98 and must have been on active
duty by the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD)  of  31  Dec  99.
Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find  these
uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and   by   themselves,   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air  Force.   The
applicant’s AF Form 3006, Enlistment Agreement, clearly indicates that
he understood that he had no claim to a higher grade and that his date
of rank was his date of  enlistment.   We  therefore  agree  with  the
recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed  as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed  to  sustain
his burden that he has suffered either an error or an  injustice.   In
view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the  contrary,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 13 Mar 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                 Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
                 Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Oct 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 7 Dec 00.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 13 Dec 00, w/atch.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 21 Jan 01.
      Exhibit E. Applicant's response, dated 16 Jan 01.






      THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
      Vice Chair