RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03451
INDEX CODE: 102.07
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The 14 months time in grade as an E-4 that he accrued in the Army be
applied towards his date of rank (DOR) in the Air National Guard
(ANG).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He held the rank of E-4 in the Army for 14 months.
In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a letter from his
supervisor, DD Form 214, Certificate for Release or Discharge from
Active Duty and other documents.
His complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant contracted his enlistment in the ANG on 2 February 2001.
He enlisted as an Airman First Class (A1C/E-3) with a date of rank of
2 February 2001 and 2 years and 10 months of prior service. On 1
January 2002, he was promoted to Senior Airman (SRA/E-4) with a date
of rank of 1 January 2002.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ ANG/DPFP recommends denial of the applicant’s request and his
supervisor’s appeal for an exception to policy. DPFP defers to Air
National Guard Instruction (ANGI) 36-2002, Enlistment and Reenlistment
in the Air National Guard. Specifically, table 1.9, rule 4, requires
that enlistees in the ANG from other services establish their DOR as
their date of enlistment in the ANG. The applicant did not qualify
for a direct conversion to a minimum 3-level Air Force Specialty Code
(AFSC) which is the only exception to this policy.
ANG/DPFP’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant’s response consisted only of a correction to DPFP’s
evaluation. The evaluation stated, incorrectly, that the applicant’s
enlistment date in the ANG was 2 February 2002, while, in fact, it was
2 February 2001. Applicant's response 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 agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air
National Guard (ANG) office of primary responsibility that Air
National Guard Instructions (ANGI’s) are clear on the establishment of
DOR and subsequent requests for adjustments to such. The applicant
enlisted in the ANG from another branch of the armed services (Regular
Army) establishing his DOR as the date of his enlistment in the ANG.
Therefore, 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 BC-
2002-03451 in Executive Session on 20 May 2003, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
Mr. Kenneth Dumm, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Oct 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPFP, dated 28 Jan 03, w/atch.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Feb 03
Exhibit D. Letter, Rebuttal, dated 5 Mar 03, w/atchs.
JOHN L. ROBUCK
Panel Chair
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. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03736
After reviewing the evidence of record, we believe that the applicant's enlistment in the Air National Guard in the grade of Airman Basic was in accordance with ANGI 36-2002. However, in view of the fact that the applicant accrued over 30 quarter hours of college credits by the time she graduated from high school in June 2002, we believe she should be entitled to the benefit of this achievement. JOHN L. ROBUCK Panel Chair DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC [pic] Office Of The...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02977
Applicant was warned of an impending demotion in grade from SRA to Airman First Class (A1C/E-3) as a result of his non-participation. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02977
Applicant was warned of an impending demotion in grade from SRA to Airman First Class (A1C/E-3) as a result of his non-participation. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03004
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03004 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general, under other than honorable conditions, discharge be upgraded to honorable. Applicant was demoted to A1C with an effective and date of rank of 25 October 1994. DPFP notes also that based on the discharge record...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01823
DPFP’s evaluation, along with attached correspondence from the -- ANG Chief of Staff and an e-mail trail between DPFP and the ANG Advisor to the Commander for 19th Air Force, is at Exhibit B. HQ AETC/DOF recommends the applicant not be reinstated into SUPT. DOF’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant notes that the National Guard Bureau (NGB) has...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03074
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03074 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable and that the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JNF – Drug Abuse be changed to remove “Drug Abuse” from his record. His submission, with...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03074
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03074 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable and that the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JNF – Drug Abuse be changed to remove “Drug Abuse” from his record. His submission, with...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00205
He enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 January 1998 in the grade of SrA. 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 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02520
The DPFP evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 December 2002 for review and response (Exhibit D). Based on the evidence, it appears that no error occurred at the time the applicant transferred from the Army National Guard to the Air National Guard on 23 September 2000. Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPFP, dated 12 November 2002.