Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03654
Original file (BC-2002-03654.doc) Auto-classification: Denied




                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03654
            INDEX CODE:  102.07

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of rank (DOR) be adjusted according to Air Force policy.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His prior service should count towards establishment of a new DOR.  He
was in the Regular Air Force from 1983 to 1989 and attained  the  rank
of Staff Sergeant (SSgt/E-5) with a DOR of Sep 88.  He was in the  Air
Force Reserve (AFRES) from Sep 88 to Jul 97 and attained the following
grades with DOR’s indicated: Technical Sergeant (TSgt/E-6) with DOR of
Jan 92; Master Sergeant (MSgt/E-7) with DOR of 1 Jul 95.

In support of his appeal, applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214,
copies of promotion orders to TSgt and  MSgt,  a  copy  of  Air  Force
Reserve DOR computation policy, and an email trail between applicant’s
unit and HQ ANG.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his enlistment in the ANG  on  1  March  2002
with approximately 15 years prior active and reserve service.  He  was
enlisted in the ANG as a SSgt/E-5 with a DOR of 1 March 2002.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPFP  recommends  denial.   DPFP  defers  to  Air  National  Guard
Instruction (ANGI) 36-2002.  Specifically, table 1.9,  rule  2,  which
requires that enlistees in the ANG, with a break in  service  of  over
two years, establish their DOR as their date of enlistment in the ANG.
 The applicant had a 4 year, 11 month break in service.

ANG/DPFP’s 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
28 February 2003 for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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  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.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,  we  find
no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief  sought  in  this
application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2002-03654 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 15 Nov 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ ANG/DPFP, dated 23 Jan 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Feb 2003.




                                   JOHN L. ROBUCK
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03451

    Original file (BC-2002-03451.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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). He enlisted as an Airman First Class (A1C/E-3) with a date of rank of 2 February 2001 and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03074

    Original file (BC-2002-03074.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2002-03074.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2003-00703

    Original file (BC-2003-00703.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 03312

    Original file (BC 2013 03312.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His Date of Rank (DOR) to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C) be corrected to 31 Jul 2001 (Administratively Corrected). In a letter dated 10 Jan 2014, AFPC/DPSOE advised the applicant his DOR to the grades of SrA, SSgt, TSgt and MSgt were administratively corrected and that he would receive supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to the grade of SMSgt during the May 2014 Senior Noncommissioned Officer (SNCO) Supplemental Promotion Board. After a thorough review of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00205

    Original file (BC-2003-00205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-01823

    Original file (BC-2002-01823.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-03004

    Original file (BC-2002-03004.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2002-04040

    Original file (BC-2002-04040.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    ANG/DPPI’s evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s vice commander (WADS/CV) responded on behalf of the applicant and notes that the ANG/DPPI evaluation, while factually correct, does not address circumstantial process shortfalls particular to the applicant’s case. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9900789

    Original file (9900789.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant had not requested supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to master sergeant (MSgt) and, by the time his case was considered, he had retired on 1 Jul 99 in the grade of TSgt with 21 years and 4 days of active service. A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit E. On 9 Feb 00, the applicant submitted an addendum to his original appeal. Mr. Wheeler voted to include the AM for consideration in the TSgt and MSgt promotion cycles with subsequent...