MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
SUBJECT: AFBCMR Case on APPLICANT, AFBCMR 01-00232
I have carefully reviewed the circumstances of this case and
do not agree with the opinion of the majority of the panel that
applicant’s request to have his time in grade or date of rank (DOR)
to the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt) adjusted to include his
previous time in grade as a TSgt, from 1 Jul 86 - 6 Sep 94, while in
the Air Force Reserve, should be denied.
After considering the evidence available for my review, I
agree with the minority member of the panel that the applicant’s
request should be granted. In this regard, it appears that the
applicant’s date of rank to the grade of technical sergeant was
properly computed in accordance with the governing regulation and
current policy. Because he had a break in service of more than 90
days, he did not receive credit for his service as a technical
sergeant during the period 1 July 1986 - 6 September 1994.
I have reviewed the applicant’s statement wherein he stated
that he started his application to rejoin the Air Force Reserve, in
August 1997, prior to separating from the Army, so that he would not
have a break in service. Unfortunately, the process was not
completed until well past 90 days after his separation. Having no
reason to question the facts as stated by the applicant, I believe
that he made an attempt to preclude having a break in service before
rejoining the Air Force Reserve and that any doubt should be
resolved in his favor. In addition, I note that he did serve
honorably in the Air Force Reserve for over eight years as a
technical sergeant and, today, continues to provide a valuable
service to the Air Force Reserve. In view of the foregoing, I
believe it would be an injustice to deny him credit for his previous
service in the grade of technical sergeant. I, therefore, find that
the applicant’s records should be corrected to reflect a DOR to TSgt
of 26 Oct 91 reflecting credit for the period 1 Jul 86 - 6 Sep 94.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards
Agency
AFBCMR 01-00232
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the
authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat
116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that his date of
rank to the Reserve grade of Technical Sergeant is 26 October 1991.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00232
INDEX NUMBER: 131.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Time-In-Grade (TIG) or his Date of Rank (DOR) to the grade of
Technical Sergeant (TSgt) be adjusted to include his previous time in
grade as a TSgt, from 1 Jul 86 - 6 Sep 94, while in the Air Force
Reserve.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
During his initial enlistment with the Air Force Reserve, he held the
rank of TSgt with a DOR of 1 July 1986 and when he separated, he was
discharged honorably.
He states that in September 1994, he joined the US Army under their
Army Civilian Acquired Skills (ACAS) program. Everyone entered the
program in the grade of corporal (E-4); while in the program he was
promoted to the grade of Sergeant (E-5). He maintained his skill-
level and held a position normally reserved for an Army Staff Sergeant
(E-6). Upon his separation from the Army in Sep 97, he was honorably
discharged in the grade of Sergeant (E-5).
On 20 May 98, he enlisted in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of
SSgt (E-5) because there were no positions in the grade of Technical
Sergeant (TSgt/E-6) available. Since he was previously qualified in
Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 4N071, when a position was available,
he applied and was approved to return to AFSC 4N071. On 1 January
2000, he was promoted to the grade of TSgt/E-6.
He requests the Board consider his explanation and adjust his DOR to
include the time he held previously in the grade of TSgt.
Applicant’s complete statement and documentary evidence submitted in
support of his appeal are at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The available records reflect applicant’s Total Active Federal
Military Service (TAFMS) as 9 years, 8 months and 26 days, with over
23 years of satisfactory service towards retirement.
Applicant initially served in the Air Force Reserve from 1 Jul 86 - 6
Sep 94. His highest grade held was Technical Sergeant (E-6), with a
Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 Jul 86. Subsequent to his service in the Air
Force Reserve, he served in the US Army Reserve between 8 Sep 94 - 7
Sep 97. He was discharged on 7 Sep 97 in the grade of Sergeant (E-5).
He enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 20 May 98 in the grade of
Staff Sergeant (E-5). He is currently serving in the grade of
Technical Sergeant (E-6), with a DOR of 1 January 2000. He reenlisted
on 7 January 2000 for a period of four years.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Military Personnel Division, HQ AFRC/DPM, reviewed the application
and indicated that the applicant contractually accepted a lower graded
position with a different component (US Army). Upon discharge from
the Army, he incurred a break in service of greater than 90 days. IAW
AFI 36-2604, Service Dates and Dates of Rank, para. 9.1.1.1., “Do not
credit service that airmen performed before a break in service of more
than 90-days for regular or reserve members.” Member has no
entitlement to DOR being recomputed based on current policy;
therefore, they recommend denial of the application.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In the applicant’s response to the Air Force evaluation, he restated
his original contentions and provided more clarification of the
process leading up to his reenlistment in the Air Force Reserve. He
believes his 25 years of service has made him a valuable asset at a
time when retention is a challenge for the medical skills. He also
provided documentation reflecting some of his accomplishments in the
Air Force, a letter of recommendation from a civilian college, and
evaluation reports from the Air Force and the US Army.
A complete copy of the applicant’s response, with attachments, 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. After a thorough review
of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, a majority of
the Board is not persuaded that his DOR for TSgt or his TIG should be
changed. Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, the
majority does not find these assertions, in and by themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air
Force. The majority found that the evidence of record clearly
indicates the applicant accepted a lower graded position when he
enlisted in the Air Force Reserve. The majority of the Board notes
that the applicant’s DOR at the time he enlisted in the Air Force
Reserve on 20 May 1998 was established in accordance with the
applicable Air Force instruction and he has been treated no
differently than others similarly situated. Therefore, the majority
of the Board agrees with the recommendations of the Air Force and
adopts the rationale expressed as the basis for their decision that
the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered
either an error or an injustice. In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, a majority of the Board finds no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 13 June 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
By majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application.
Mr. Schlunz voted to correct the records but does not wish to submit a
minority report. The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jan 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFRC/DPM, dated 23 Mar 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Apr 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 8 May 01, w/atchs.
VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03805
The complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _____________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In her response to the Air Force evaluation, applicant reiterates her request to change her DOR to her original active duty date of 1 Jul 00 or in the alternative consideration for her time served in the Air Force Reserve. _____________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03920
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/DPM recommended denial noting the applicant was in a retraining status at the time of her promotion to TSgt and did not have a three- skill level in the promotion AFSC as required by the governing Air Force Instruction. AFRC/DPM indicated that as a result of the applicant’s DOR being changed to 1 Mar 02, she did not meet the two- year minimum time in grade requirement for promotion to the grade...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Available documentation indicated that the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 2 Dec 88 in the grade of airman for a period of six years. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s staff request, the Directorate of Military Law, AFRC/JAJM, reviewed this application and recommended denial. JAJM indicated that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02838
In support of applicant’s appeal, he submitted a personal statement; an email, dated 19 May 03, from his military personnel flight to 4th AF/DPM concerning contractual errors; Reserve Order P- 045 reflecting promotion to staff sergeant, effective 1 Jul 91; copies of a 1 Sep 91 training certificate, a Report of Individual Personnel (RIP), dated 31 Jul 91, and a DD Form 2AF (Reserve) ID Card issued 17 Aug 91, all reflecting the rank of staff sergeant; copies of DD Form 214, Certificate of...
The applicant had not requested supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to master sergeant (MSgt) and, by the time his case was considered, he had retired on 1 Jul 99 in the grade of TSgt with 21 years and 4 days of active service. A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit E. On 9 Feb 00, the applicant submitted an addendum to his original appeal. Mr. Wheeler voted to include the AM for consideration in the TSgt and MSgt promotion cycles with subsequent...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03654
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 National Guard (ANG) office of primary responsibility that ANG Instructions are clear on the establishment of DOR and subsequent requests for adjustments to such. The applicant had in excess of a two-year break in service from the Air Force before enlisting into the ANG establishing his DOR to be the date of his enlistment into the ANG. ...
The applicant was considered and selected for promotion to the grade of TSgt by the 00E6 promotion cycle. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant should be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant by the 98E6 promotion cycle. Applicant’s disappointment is understandable but he has not presented sufficient persuasive evidence that he should be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant by the 98E6 cycle.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00223
On 10 Sep 03, the Board did not restore his SSgt grade but instead promoted him to senior airman effective 9 Apr 03 and waived the HYT restriction so he could be eligible for promotion consideration by the 04E5 cycle. His present reenlistment (RE) code of 4D renders him ineligible to reenlist because of HYT restrictions, i.e., he has not yet been promoted to SSgt. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. HQ AFPC/DPPRR notes the applicant is not reenlistment eligible,...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Division, , reviewed this application and noted that a review of the demotion actions against the applicant indicated he was demoted from technical sergeant (TSgt) to staff sergeant (SSgt), under the authority of Article 15 action, effective 23 May 94, for dereliction of duty. The evidence of record reflects that the applicant was reduced from the grade of technical sergeant to...
He was medically cleared on 7 Aug 00 and enlisted in the RegAF on 5 Sep 00 in the grade of SSgt (E-5) with a DOR of 5 Sep 00. The applicant’s enlistment was processed in a timely manner and his DOR correctly established to equal his 5 Sep 00 enlistment date. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis...