Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03805
Original file (BC-2002-03805.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC 2002-03805
            INDEX NUMBER: 131.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her date of rank (DOR) be changed to 1 Jul 00 and that she be allowed  to
test for promotion to technical sergeant during the 02E6 testing cycle.

_____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was honorably discharged from the Air Force on 20 Jul 01.  She joined
the Air Force Reserve effective 21 Jul 01.  She was honorably  discharged
from the Air Force Reserve effective 7 Jan 02 and reentered  active  duty
on 8 Jan 02.

Upon reentering active duty in Jan 02, she was given a DOR of 8  Jan  02.
When she arrived at  her  duty  station,  she  sought  help  through  her
military personnel flight (MPF) to get her DOR corrected.  It was changed
to 13 Dec 00, which was still incorrect.  According to  the  requirements
contained in AFI 36-2604, paragraph 8.6, she qualified to  keep  the  DOR
she had when discharged from the Reserves.  After inquiring to her MPF as
to why her DOR was set as 13 Dec 00, it was changed  to  18  Dec  00  for
reasons unknown.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_____________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served on active duty in the Air Force from 11 Aug 94 to 20
Jul 01 and was separated in the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) with a DOR
of 1 Jul 00.  She subsequently served in the Air Force Reserves  from  21
Jul 01 to 7 Jan 02.  She reenlisted in the Regular Air Force on 8 Jan  02
in the grade of SSgt and was given a DOR of 18 Dec 00.

Additional relevant facts pertaining to this case are  contained  in  the
evaluation prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force  found  at
Exhibit C.
_____________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAO recommends denial of the applicant’s  request  to  adjust  her
DOR.  According to  AFI  36-2604,  paragraph  8.2,  applicant’s  DOR  was
computed correctly.  Applicant received 100% time in grade of  E-5,  with
adjustment by the number of days break in active duty service  since  her
total break was less than four years, resulting in a DOR of 18 Dec 00.

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.

She indicates that she served in the Air Force Reserves from 21 Jul 01 to
7 Jan 02 and was promoted to  the  grade  of  technical  sergeant  (TSgt)
effective 1 Jan 02.  She states that she  served  a  total  of  16  unit-
training activities and was  placed  on  active  duty  to  attend  formal
training for 11 days.

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.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits  of  the  case.   However,  the
majority of the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation  of  the
Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopts their rationale  as
the basis for their conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim
of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence that the
applicant’s date of rank to staff sergeant upon her return to active duty
was computed incorrectly or contrary to the  governing  instruction,  the
majority of the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the
relief sought in this application.

_____________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice
and recommends the application be denied.

_____________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2002-03805
in Executive Session on 1 April 2003, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member
      Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the applicant’s request.  Mr.
Schlunz voted to grant the applicant’s request  but  did  not  desire  to
submit  a  minority  report.   The  following  documentary  evidence  was
considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Nov 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAO, dated 10 Feb 03,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 6 Mar 03.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair

MEMORANDUM FOR   THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                       FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX-XX-XXXX

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02615

    Original file (BC-2002-02615.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2003-00850

    Original file (BC-2003-00850.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-02964

    Original file (BC-2002-02964.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02964 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) to SSgt (E-5) be corrected from 6 Feb 01 to 1 Jan 96, his DOR when he served in the U.S. Army. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, the Board majority believes that it is not unreasonable to believe that the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02825

    Original file (BC-2002-02825.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00604

    Original file (BC-2003-00604.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-02099

    Original file (BC-2002-02099.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    In a rebuttal to the Air Force evaluation, applicant now requests that she be reinstated to active duty in the Air Force, promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-6) and allowed to cross train into the Paralegal career field she was approved for prior to her discharge. The applicant’s complete statement is at Exhibit L. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPAE recommends that the applicant’s RE code be changed to “3K,”...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0003028

    Original file (0003028.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03028 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) to SSgt (E-5) be corrected from 29 Feb 00 to 2 Nov 97, his DOR when he served in the Air National Guard (ANG); his extended active duty (EAD) date reflect 2 Mar 99 vice 29 Feb 00, and his Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) tests...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03593

    Original file (BC-2003-03593.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2002 | 0201257

    Original file (0201257.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | 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...