RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01482
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His enlistment grade be corrected to reflect staff sergeant (E-5) and he be
awarded half of his previous time in grade (TIG).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He should have entered the Air Force as an E-5 and received credit for half
of his time-in-grade (TIG) as an E-5 in the Navy.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant served in the United States Navy from 16 June 1996 through 7
May 2000 and was progressively promoted to the grade of E-5. He had 16
months of time in grade (TIG) as an E-5. At the time of his honorable
discharge on 7 May 2000, he completed 3 years, 10 months, and 20 days of
active service, with 11 months and 26 days of prior inactive service.
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15 March 2001, for a
period of four years in the grade of E-4, with a date of rank (DOR) of 15
March 2001.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAEQ recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that
the applicant’s enlistment grade was determined in accordance with
governing directives (i.e., more than two years but less than five years
and six months Total Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS)) and that he
enlisted in the appropriate grade of E-4. He initialed and signed the AF
Form 3007 acknowledging that he was enlisting in the grade of E-4 and had
no claim to a higher grade. There is no evidence that he was misled into
enlisting into the Regular Air Force as an E-4.
The AFPC/DPPAEQ evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The evaluation states that he would need five years and six months time in
service to enlist in a grade previously held in a branch other than the
Regular Air Force; however, AFI 36-2002 states that the time in service
requirement applies to those enlisting in a higher pay grade than last held
in the Regular Air Force, or when last component was other than Air Force.
Since he did not want to enter as an E-6, he should have entered as an E-5.
Furthermore, his DOR was not established correctly. Should the Board deny
his request as pertains to his pay grade, he questions what DOR should be
used. He was never credited with one-half of his previous TIG since his
enlistment was before his second anniversary of his adjusted date of
separation (DOS).
The applicant’s complete 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 error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence
of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his
enlistment grade or date of rank (DOR) are incorrect. The applicant
contends that since he did not want to enter in a grade higher than he
previously held, he should have entered as an E-5. However, in accordance
with AFI 36-2002, since his last component was in a branch of service other
than Air Force, he needed a minimum of five years and six months total
active military service to enlist in the Air Force in the grade of E-5.
The applicant only had 3 years, 10 months and 20 days total active service.
The applicant also contends that his DOR was not established correctly;
however, the establishment of his DOR appears to be in accordance with the
governing directives. Since he was enlisted as an E-4, his time in grade
as an E-5 in the Navy cannot be counted toward his DOR as an E-4. He has
provided no evidence that his enlistment grade or DOR at the time of
enlistment in the Regular Air Force were improperly computed or contrary to
the governing regulations. Therefore, 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 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 02-01482 in
Executive Session on 10 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
Ms. Diane Arnold, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Apr 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAEQ, dated 18 Jul 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jul 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.
JOSEPH A. ROJ
Panel Chair
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 15 May 96 for a period of 4 years. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00703
On 21 Oct 02, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years and entered active duty in the grade of SSgt with a DOR of 21 Oct 02. He initialed and signed an AF Form 3006, Enlistment Agreement-Prior Service, stating he was enlisting in the grade of SSgt, that he had no claim to a higher grade, that entitlement to further promotions would be in accordance with regulations in effect at the time, and that provisions do not exist to accelerate promotion due to prior...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02370
The DPPAEQ evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that AFI 36-2604 states that if a member was serving in a regular component other than the Regular Air Force and enlists in a lower grade due to Total Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS), the DOR will be computed from the original DOR for the enlistment grade and years separated from the Date of Separation (DOS). In further...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00850
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of E-3, with an effective date and date of rank (DOR) of 19 Apr 01. Air Force Instruction 36-2604, Service Dates and Date of Rank, stipulates that “Airmen in the following categories receive a DOR equal to the date of enlistment in the RegAF: Non-prior service enlistees (members who have served less than 24 months total active federal military service) or...
However, it appears evident that if the applicant was truly serious about getting ACSC completed before his IPZ board, his plan would have called for completing it prior to CY 1993 or CY 1994, not CY 1996. Concerning the evidence provided by the applicant related to the similarly-situated officer whose case was considered by the Board, DPPA stated that the advisory opinion provided in that case to the Board in 1984 was in error. Once again, JA stated that had the applicant based his...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01681
In a 4 Feb 00 appeal, he requested SSB consideration for the Fiscal Year 2000 (FY00) Air Force Reserve Colonel Promotion Selection Board, which convened on 18 Oct 99, and any subsequent Reserve Colonel Promotion Board for which he was not considered. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s previous appeal and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit C. On 15 Jun 01, the applicant was notified that he...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00604
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00604 INDEX NUMBER: 131.05 XXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) as a staff sergeant (SSgt) (E-5) in the Air Force be established as 1 Apr 96, the date he was promoted to E-5 during his previous service in the Marine Corps. He enlisted in the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02836 INDEX NUMBER: 1112.0 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His enlistment date of rank (DOR) of 6 May 1998 be changed to reflect he received one-half of the time in grade (TIG) credit from his previous Active Duty tour. ...
The applicant indicates that one of the enticing incentives his recruiter counseled him about was that his date of rank to senior airman would be adjusted to 11 July 1995; however, after testing and not being selected for promotion to staff sergeant, he realized that his date of rank had not been adjusted as his recruiter had advised. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02825
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-02825 INDEX CODE 129.01 131.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His time in grade (TIG) as an E5 be corrected to reflect all of his TIG from prior service in the US Navy and his date of rank (DOR) as an Air Force E5 be changed from 7 Mar 00 to 25 Jul 99. ...