RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03963
INDEX NUMBER: 135.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) (E-5) with a date of rank (DOR) of
13 Nov 00 that he earned in the Air National Guard be established as
the grade in which he was ordered to active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
It took more than four years for him to be ordered to active duty
after he was disenrolled from the Air Force Academy, although the
normal length of time is 30 days. He was enlisted in the Air National
Guard during this four-year period, where he was promoted to the grade
of SSgt. If he had been ordered to active duty within the normal 30
days, it would have been in the grade of E-4. However, Air Force
Instruction 36-2020 provides an exception for a cadet to be awarded a
higher grade when ordered to active duty if the cadet had earned a
higher grade for service prior to the Academy. He does not believe it
makes sense that he could keep the higher grade if his service were
prior, but lose it since he enlisted after leaving the academy, when
he had no break in service going from the Air National Guard to the
Air Force Reserve.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides extracts from
applicable Air Force Instructions, a copy of his separation orders
from the Air National Guard, and a copy of his extended active duty
(EAD) orders.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of
senior airman (SrA) (E-4) after being involuntarily called to active
duty to fulfill a 36-month Military Service Obligation due to his
disenrollment from the Air Force Academy. Originally, when he was
disenrolled from the Academy, the applicant was ordered to reimburse
the Government in lieu of serving on active duty. As a result of a
case previously considered by the AFBCMR, the applicant was granted
the option to serve on active duty to fulfill his commitment (Exhibit
B).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAEQ recommends denial of the applicant’s request. At the time
the applicant enlisted in the Air National Guard (ANG), he was already
serving on a Military Service Obligation with the Reserves, thereby
making his contract with the ANG erroneous. When the applicant was
involuntarily called to duty, AFI 36-2020 directed his pay grade to be
established as E-4. His enlistment with the ANG was after his
enlistment with the Air Force Academy; therefore no credit was given
for time served. They also illustrate that even if the applicant’s
enlistment had been voluntary, based on his Total Active Federal
Military Service, his grade would have still been E-4.
The applicant’s enlistment grade is consistent with governing Air
Force directives.
The complete 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 2
May 03 for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has
not been received.
_________________________________________________________________
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 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. 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 issues 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 Docket Number BC-2002-
03963 in Executive Session on 2 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
Ms. Nancy Wells Drury, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Dec 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAEQ, dated 28 Apr 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 03.
ROBERT S. BOYD
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03585
The complete 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 2 Dec 05 for review and comment within 30 days. The additional evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response to the additional Air Force evaluation, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01683
AFI 36-2604 states, “Former AFROTC cadets ordered to EAD under Title 10, USC., 2105 and 2107, keep the date of rank specified on their reserve enlistment contract.” It implies that former AFROTC cadets did not have a previous DOR. Eighteen or nineteen year old cadet disenrolled from AFROTC have to give back time or money to the Air Force and have to be involuntarily recalled to active duty. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04639
He believes he should have received an honorable discharge from the Academy due to his prior service and been allowed to complete his enlistment with ANG. The applicant received an honorable discharge from the ANG; however, his DD Form 214 only characterizes his service time as a basic cadet and not any previous service that he had already been separated. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2000-03245
There is no indication that the applicant was forced to take advance leave with pay prior to entering the Air Force Academy as a basic cadet. Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Chief Pay Services, HQ USAFA/FMFC, reviewed the application and states that cadets receive advance pay for clothing and equipment purchases. ...
On 29 Sep 98, the Secretary of the Air Force approved the recommendation of the United States Air Force Academy Superintendent to disenroll applicant and directed that he be honorably separated from cadet status, transferred to the Air Force Reserve and ordered to active duty for a period of three years. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Staff Judge Advocate, HQ USAFA/JA, stated that the applicant was disenrolled from the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01161
The applicant was advised that he may present his case to a Hearing Officer, receive (if he choose to present his case to a Hearing Officer) all the rights of AFI 36-2020 and may use military witnesses provided the request for witnesses is timely submitted and, in the opinion of the Hearing Officer, the witnesses can present relevant evidence that cannot be reasonably received though videotape, deposition, interrogation, or sworn or unsworn written statement. The applicant was afforded due...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01824
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He is authorized the enlistment grade of E-7 based on active duty time served with Air National Guard and finishing his Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) degree and other Non-Commissioned Officer requirements. I understand my entitlement to further promotions will be in accordance with regulations in effect at the time of my eligibility for promotion and provisions do not exist to accelerate...
His case went to the Secretary of the Air Force where he was deemed unfit to serve as an enlisted member of the Air Force even though he received an honorable discharge from the Air Force. On 13 Feb 96, the Secretary of the Air Force approved the recommendation of the Superintendent, USAFA, to disenroll the applicant and directed that he be honorably discharged from the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Staff Judge...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00091
Counsel discusses the applicant’s problems with alcohol and states that alcohol dependency is recognized as a mental and physical disease. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: In his response to the Air Force evaluations, counsel disagrees with the assertion by AFPC/JA the applicant has not submitted evidence he is an alcoholic or suffers from alcoholism. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-04086
The members of the MRC recommended the applicant be disenrolled. This case has already been processed through the Secretary of the Air Force. Therefore, even though the USAFA might be able to conclude that her disenrollment did not violate Air Force regulations, the AFBCMR may override the previous decision to disenroll if the disenrollment is unjust.