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.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
On 7 Jan 02, AFI 36-2604 was changed to let prior service members
retain all TIG if separated less than four years. This change was not
grandfathered to prior service members that returned to active duty
prior to the date of publication of the change. He lost 50% of his
TIG and was only out for 35 days. He believes this change is
discriminatory because it puts prior service members entering after
the change in a clear advantage for promotion testing.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the US Navy from 12 Jan 93 and was promoted
to E5 with a DOR of 16 Dec 98. He was discharged from the Navy on 18
Mar 01 in the grade of E5. He subsequently enlisted in the Air Force
on 24 Apr 01 and his DOR as an E5 was established as 7 Mar 00.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPAO advises the applicant returned to active duty with 1
month, 4 days adjusted date of separation in the grade of E5. He
received 50% TIG of E5 in accordance with AFI 36-2604, 1 Jul 99, which
awarded members 50% of TIG. The applicant’s adjusted date of
separation was less than two years; therefore, he received 50% of TIG
of E5 and his DOR was established as 7 Mar 00. Effective 18 Dec 01,
AFI 36-2604 was changed so that prior service enlisted members
returning to active duty in the same grade before the fourth
anniversary of the adjusted rate of separation would receive 100% of
TIG. The change was not grandfathered and was effective on date of
publication. HQ AFPC/DPPAO asserts that, based on governing
directives, the applicant’s DOR was computed correctly and the appeal
should be denied. However, if relief is granted, his DOR should be
adjusted to 25 Jul 99.
A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 6 Dec 02 for review and comment within 30 days. As of
this date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 to warrant changing the
applicant’s TIG and DOR. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted;
however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air
Force. The applicant’s belief that his circumstances are unfair is
understandable, and we do not dispute that rule changes can, and often
do, have a tremendous impact on any given individual. Nevertheless,
this is a fact of life. Policy effective dates are utilized and
instrumental in many processes, and no system is or will be perfectly
fair to everyone. Policies and regulations often change, and while
that may seem unfair, it is not inherently unjust. In this case, the
applicant has not established that his TIG and DOR were incorrectly
computed or that he was treated any differently than others affected
by the governing directive in existence at the time. 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 of having 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 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 20 March 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Joseph C. Diamond, Panel Chair
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
02825 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Aug 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAO, undated, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Dec 02.
JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02615
This change was not grandfathered to prior service members that returned to active duty prior to the date of publication of the change. Applicant’s adjusted date of separation was more than 2 years but less than 4 years; therefore, applicant received 25% of time in grade of E-5 and date of rank was established as 10 Feb 00. Effective 18 Dec 01 AFI 36-2604, para 8.2, was changed to read, “prior service enlisted returning to active duty in the same grade, before the fourth anniversary of...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03593
His time in service dates were adjusted by the four months and five days of his break in service. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPAO recommended denial indicating that the time frame from when the applicant was discharged to the time he returned to active duty was less than two years, which entitled him to 50 percent of his time in grade as a staff sergeant. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAO evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-02438
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-02438 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His time spent completing his degree on the Educational Delay Program (EDP) be recalculated to provide 100% credit so that his date of rank (DOR) to second lieutenant would be 14 Dec 99, rather than 22 Sep 00. We find it troubling that, had the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02438
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-02438 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His time spent completing his degree on the Educational Delay Program (EDP) be recalculated to provide 100% credit so that his date of rank (DOR) to second lieutenant would be 14 Dec 99, rather than 22 Sep 00. We find it troubling that, had the applicant...
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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01257 INDEX CODE 131.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her time spent completing her degree on the Educational Delay Program (EDP) be recalculated to provide 100% credit so that her date of rank (DOR) to second lieutenant (2LT) would be 9 Jun 00, rather than 12 Feb 01. A complete copy of...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03578
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03578 INDEX CODE: 131.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) be adjusted from 15 November 1996 to 15 November 1999. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Due to his release from active duty, Reduction-In Force, in...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02315
DPPAOR states that in accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2604, Service Dates and Dates of Rank, paragraph 8.4, the applicant’s date of rank was computed correctly. DPPPWB states that based on the applicant’s adjusted DOR, the first time he was eligible for promotion consideration to TSgt was cycle 03E6 (promotions effective August 2003 - July 2004). If the Board grants the applicant’s request to change his DOR to 19 September 1999, he would receive 28.5 weighted points for TIG and...