RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01976
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated to the grade of E-6, with a date of rank (DOR)  of  1
March 2000 and back pay from 3 October 2000.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was demoted to the  grade  of  E-5,  loss  of  all  date  of  rank,
ineligible  for  promotion  testing  and  loss  of  pay  due  to   old
regulations and directives set forth prior to the acceptance  policies
for recruiting  experienced  prior  service  enlisted  members  during
critical shortages.

Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant  served on  active  duty between 9  January  1986  to  6
January 1994 and was  honorably  discharged  in  the  grade  of  staff
sergeant after serving 7 years, 11 months and 27 days.

The applicant was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve on 2
October 2000 in the grade of technical sergeant  (E-6).   He  enlisted
into the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 3 October 2000 in the  grade  of
an E-5.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant's military records, are  contained  in  the  letter
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPAE states  AFI  36-2002,  Regular  Air  Force  and  Special
Category  Accessions,  is  the  governing  directive  for  determining
enlistment grades.  The directive states to enlist in the RegAF as  an
E-6 an individual have must 10 years of Total Active Federal  Military
Service (TAFMS).  The applicant’s enlistment grade was  determined  in
accordance with the governing directives.  The applicant was  enlisted
at the appropriate grade of E-5.  He was not enlisted at the grade  of
E-6, because he did not have the required 10 years TAFMS.   They  find
no evidence the applicant was mislead when he enlisted into the RegAF.
 Based on the rationale provided,  DPPAE  recommends  the  applicant's
request be denied.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states he  is  not
requesting the grade  of  E-6  based  solely  on  his  vast  training,
experience and  certifications.   He  was  misled  by  the  Air  Force
Recruiting Services personnel and was not informed of the  effects  of
losing three years of time in  grade  as  an  E-5,  21  points  toward
promotion testing for E-6 and that he would not be able  to  test  for
promotion for until spring 2003.  In support of  his  request  he  has
provided  character  references  and  certification  of  his  training
(Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE states the applicant, at the time of his reenlistment,  had
8 years and 28 days of TAFMS.  The applicant needed 10 years of  TAFMS
to enlist in the RegAF  as  an  E-6.   Former  members  of  a  regular
component enlisting on or after their 6th  anniversary  of  their  DOS
will have their DOR equal to the date of enlistment in the RegAF.  The
applicant had been separated from a regular component for 6  years,  8
months and 26 days.  The applicant was beyond the timeframe for a  DOR
adjustment.  DPPAE further states the applicant’s enlistment grade and
DOR were reviewed and determined correct in accordance with  governing
directives.  The applicant was enlisted in the proper grade and DOR.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and again states  that
he is not requesting to be returned to the grade of E-6 based  on  his
training and certifications.  He has been deceived  and  has  suffered
several injustices.  He was told he would be enlisted as  an  E-5  for
four years and receive a new DOR and if  he  had  any  arguments  they
could be dealt with at the gaining MPF.  AFPC keeps stating  over  and
over again the regulations, but they fail to recognize  that  the  Air
Force Recruiting Command failed to counsel him  about  the  losses  he
would suffer by enlisting as an E-5.

HQ AFPC has paid him as an E-5  with  10  years  of  service  since  3
October 2000, just like he had  10  years  of  TAFMS.   Ten  years  of
service is the reason he cannot hold the rank of E-6.  AFPC states  he
can’t hold the rank of E-6, but he receives pay for a 10  year  active
duty E-5 member.  He is now receiving pay as a  12  year  active  duty
veteran.

He further states that many prior service members come back in  before
the 4 year time in grade (TIG) rule, included in AFI 36-2604.  As  the
break in service  increases,  the  awarded  TIG  decreases.   This  is
definitely a punishment.  This was implemented due to  the  statistics
of enlisted personnel discharged who did not keep up their proficiency
(skill level) and managerial skills in an equivalent career  field  in
the civilian climate.  He has held the same skill level (7) and beyond
in the same field as a civilian and an NCOIC in the AF Reserves.

He is sure General Jumper would not approve of this injustice  he  was
served.  It is a monumental task these  days  to  get  skilled  middle
management in any  atmosphere.   Everyone  he  has  encountered  can’t
believe the injustices he has suffered.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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 agree with the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force and adopt their rationale 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.   The  applicant  contends  that  he  was
miscounseled by the Recruiting Service and he should have been able to
enlist in the RegAF as an E-6.  However, it appears that in order  for
the applicant to be enlisted in the RegAF as an  E-6,  he  needed  ten
years of total active military federal service (TAFMS).  The applicant
did not have the required time  to  enlist  as  an  E-6,  however;  he
apparently met the criteria to enlist as  an  E-5.   Furthermore,  the
applicant signed  and  initialed  the  Enlistment  Agreement  -  Prior
Service (AF Form 3006), which stated he was enlisting as  an  E-5  and
that he had no claim to a higher grade and  that  his  entitlement  to
promotions would be based on the regulations in effect at the  of  his
enlistment  and  that  no  provisions  are  available  to   accelerate
promotions due to prior service or number of  years.   The  enlistment
agreement further stated the applicant’s DOR would be the date of  his
enlistment in the RegAF.  Therefore, in view of the foregoing  and  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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
01976 in Executive Session on 25 March 2003, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Jun 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Microfiche.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 3 Sep 02.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Oct 02.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 25 Oct 02,
                 w/atchs.
      Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 30 Jan 03.
      Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Feb 03.
      Exhibit H. Applicant’s Response, dated 11 Feb 03.




                       ROBERT S. BOYD
                       Panel Chair