RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00008
            INDEX CODE:  112.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His enlistment grade be corrected to reflect at a minimum, that he  enlisted
in the grade of E-4; or in the alternative, he be promoted to the  grade  of
E-4 after serving six months.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Prior to enlisting in the Air Force he served in the  Army  National  Guard.
He served in the Guard for over 12 years, 3-1/2 of which was on a full  time
basis.  He was promoted to the reserve grade of E-4.  He was assured by  his
recruiter, prior to his enlistment, that given his prior service  and  rank,
it should not be a problem for him to be able to enlist in the Air Force  as
an  E-4.   When  he  enlisted  he  noticed  that  the  contract  listed  his
enlistment grade as E-2.  He refused to sign the contract and was told  that
his refusal would place him back on a waiting list  and  his  requested  Air
Force Specialty (AFS) may no longer be  available.   Since  he  had  already
resigned his position with the Army, he could not afford to go on a  waiting
list with a family to feed so he signed  the  contract.   It  was  suggested
that he take the position and  pursue  the  rank  issue  once  he  enlisted.
Based on those circumstances he elected to accept the contract.

It was explained to him that based  on  his  retirement  points,  he  has  9
months of active military creditable service, and was awarded an  enlistment
grade of E-2.  The applicant feels that his 12 years of  service  and  3-1/2
years on a full time basis should hold  a  lot  more  weight  than  an  ROTC
student or an Eagle Scout fresh out of high school.   The  personnel  center
considered his military technician status to  be  Civil  Service  time  that
does not count.  However, he interprets Title 10,  U.S.C  differently.   His
service was anything but civilian in  nature.   His  service  was  equal  in
every  way  to  active  duty  service.   He  wore  the   uniform   everyday,
participated in fitness programs,  and  conducted  his  self  with  all  the
integrity and courtesies expected of a uniformed soldier.   On  most  bases,
Civil Service employees are dressed in civilian attire.  The positions  that
he held have been dual status, a majority of which were at the GS-07  level.
  GS  grades  in  the  dual  status  program  usually  coincide   with   the
technician's military rank.

Entering the Air Force as an E-2 is not only hard for him to  handle  as  an
experienced military member but a waste of his talents  as  a  leader.   The
financial strain on his family has been tremendous.  Because  he  was  under
the impression that he would enter the Air Force  as  an  E-4,  he  was  not
prepared for the effects of lesser rank.  The applicant feels  that  he  was
deceived by the counselors  at  the  Military  Entrance  Processing  Station
(MEPS).  He was taken advantage of because of his situation  and  misled  to
believe that the counselors were there to help in any  way  they  could.   A
simple call to Randolph AFB from the MEPS counselors letting them know  that
he should be enlisting as an  E-4 would have solved the problem right  away.


In support of his request,  the  applicant  provided  a  photo,  a  personal
statement, his enlistment order, his Personnel Qualification Record; his  DD
Form 4-1, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document, with attachments;  his  DD  Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from  Active  Duty;  Army  National
Guard separation documents,  recommendation  letters,  documents  associated
with  awards  received  while  serving  in  the  Army  National  Guard,  and
documents associated with  his  educational  and  training  accomplishments.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the personnel data system reflects that  the  applicant,
a prior Army National Guard member, enlisted in the Regular Air Force on  26
Jul 01 in the grade of airman (E-2).  He has been progressively promoted  to
the grade of airman first class, having assumed  that  grade  effective  and
with a date of rank of 26 May 02.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAEQ reviewed applicant's  request  and  recommends  denial.   DPPAEQ
states that AFI  36-2002  outlines  the  minimum  eligibility  criteria  for
enlistment  grades  to  include  college  level  education.   The  applicant
submitted two unofficial college transcripts reflecting a combined total  of
16 semester hours; less than the required  amount  for  advanced  promotion.
To enlist in a grade previously held in a branch of service other  than  the
Regular Air Force, individuals must  meet  specific  Total  Active  Military
Service (TAFMS)  requirements  that  are  equitable  within  the  Air  Force
promotion system.  Military  experience  can  be  used  to  determine  Civil
Service pay grades; however, there is no authority to use Civil  Service  as
a qualifying factor to determine Regular  Air  Force  pay  grades.   Reserve
members with dual status obtain TAFMS when they are called  to  active  duty
on orders and in their military pay grade.

He has 9 months and 19 days TAFMS, less than the minimum required for  grade
placement beyond E-2.  Based on the applicant  having  less  that  one  year
TAFMS and 16 semester hours of college,  he  enlisted  in  the  highest  pay
grade authorized by governing  directives.   The  DPPAEQ  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that the documentation he submitted was to illustrate  that
he was a dual  status  military  technician,  not  to  be  mistaken  with  a
civilian federal employee.  He was listed as an excepted technician,  not  a
competitive technician.  This is what separates a military employee  from  a
non-military employee.  He clearly  quoted  the  U.S.C.  to  show  that  his
service was not civilian, as  consistently  referred  to  by  the  personnel
center.  The regulations that pertain to college credit for  higher  grades,
ROTC for higher grades,  and  non-military  organization  participation  for
higher grades each falls under Special  Category  Accessions  based  on  one
common bond.  In  each  rank  is  based  on  the  potential  for  leadership
ability, or more so the expectation that  the  individual  is  in  some  way
trained to be a leader.  In the case of the provision that offers  a  higher
grade for 6-year enlistment based  on  education  level,  no  potential  for
leadership exists.  The grade of E-3 is awarded  as  a  bargaining  tool  to
entice the applicant into a longer commitment.  When he inquired  about  the
6-year option he was told that it did not apply to him because he was  prior
service.  The applicant reiterates that he  held  various  positions  during
his years of full time dual  status  while  wearing  the  uniform.   Yet  no
special provisions exist  to  credit  his  leadership  experience.   He  has
civilian certifications which he would qualify as an advanced  skill  level.
His position in the Air Force is a Computer  System  Controller.   It  would
seem to him that he is in the right field to have those skills applied.   He
was very persistent in his efforts to find out what his enlistment rank  was
going to be.  However, he never got the support form  the  MEPS  station  to
have his enlistment grade fixed as promised.

The applicant states that he  doesn’t  feel  like  the  AFIs  refer  to  his
specific situation.  He feels that because of this he should  be  considered
as a special category and respected for his leadership skills, and that  his
rank should be amended on his enlistment  contract.   He  was  told  by  the
Family Support officer with prior MEPS  experience,  that  usually  in  this
situation an applicant's grade would be dropped one grade and  in  180  days
the original rank would be reinstated.  He proposed that he be extended  the
same courtesy to handle his unique situation as an alternative.

In support of his  appeal,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement  and
letters of recommendation from his supervisors.   His  complete  submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we  are  not
persuaded that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  He  asserts
that he was miscounseled by his recruiter.  However,  he  does  not  provide
evidence to substantiate  his  allegations.   In  regards  to  his  enlisted
grade, we 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.   Absent  persuasive  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 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  Docket  Number  02-00008  in
Executive Session on 17 Oct 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Panel Chair
      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
      Ms. Rita S. Looney, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Dec 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAEQ, dated 8 Jul 02.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jul 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, not dated, w/atch.



                                   JACKSON A. HAUSLEIN
                                   Panel Chair