RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00603
            INDEX CODE:

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of rank (DOR) to first lieutenant  be  adjusted  from  4 July
2002 to 4 April 2001.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told that his graduate degree would count towards his DOR  day-
for-day.  His degree was officially 3 years and  3  months  -  he  was
given 2 years of credit.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of a  revised  note
to the administrative  officer,  explaining  the  description  of  the
history and problems with his DOR calculation, a copy of his  list  of
contacts, a memorandum from the Initial Officer  Accessions  Recruiter
and the Officer Accessions Recruiter, verifying Day-for-Day credit,  a
memorandum verifying the Official Length of the Degree, a copy of  his
Reserve orders indicating his grade as a captain, and  an  excerpt  of
AFITI 36-101, Page 16,  paragraph  6.3.1,  indicating  that  Financial
Assistance Program (FAP) students will get the base pay of a  captain.
Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that on 22 July 2002, the applicant was  ordered  to  extended  active
duty in the grade of first lieutenant, with a date of rank of  4  July
2002.  In a Constructive Service Credit Computation  completed  on  15
July 2002, the applicant was granted 2 years of credit for his  Master
of Science degree and 1 month of credit  his  prior  inactive  Reserve
service.

_________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAMF2 states that the applicant completed his Master’s Degree in
Architecture and  was  sponsored  through  the  Air  Force  FAP.   The
applicant states his recruiter told him that he would receive day-for-
day credit while completing his master’s degree and would enter active
duty (AD) at the  rank  of  captain  (0-3).   He  later  received  his
extended active duty (EAD) orders appointing him in the grade of first
lieutenant (0-2) as opposed to captain.  He contacted  AFPC/DPAMW  and
was informed that he did not have an AETC Form 1431,  Medical  Service
Grade and  Pay  Computation  Worksheet  (estimated)  on  file  in  his
records.  The  applicant’s  EAD,  Total  Active  Federal  Commissioned
Service and Total Active Federal Military Service dates  are  22  July
2002.

DPAMF2 indicates that AFI 36-2005, Appointment in Commissioned  Grades
and Designation and Assignment in Professional  Categories-Reserve  of
the AF and USAF, table 2.5, rule #8, outlines the procedures to  award
MS degree, “completed a Master of Science  degree  in  engineering  or
industrial hygiene, then the amount of award is 12 to 24 months.  Note
4 reads:  “Depending on the official length of the program, award  the
applicant 12-24 months credit for a master’s degree.  Furthermore, AFI
36-2005, para 8.2, states  the  minimum  education  requirement  is  a
baccalaureate degree in engineering,  architecture  and  architectural
engineering.

According to DPAMF2, the applicant was misinformed  by  his  recruiter
regarding his rank upon entry into the  Air  Force,  however,  he  was
awarded appropriate credit in accordance with AFI 36-2005.   The  AETC
Forms 1431 are not used for FAP students therefore the applicant would
not have had one on file.  Therefore, they  recommend  disapproval  of
applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAOR  states  that  the  Medical  Service  Officer   Management
Division recommended denial  of  the  case.   However,  if  the  Board
determines his case should be approved, his DOR would  change  from  4
July 2002 to 4 April 2001.  A complete copy  of  their  evaluation  is
attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 18 April 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded
to the applicant for review and response 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.   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
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.   The  Air
Force states that the  applicant  was  misinformed  by  his  recruiter
regarding his rank upon entry into the  Air  Force;  however,  he  was
awarded appropriate credit in accordance with AFI 36-2005.  It is also
noted that the applicant completed his Master’s Degree in Architecture
and was sponsored through the Air Force Financial  Assistance  Program
(FAP).  The AETC Forms 1431 are not used for FAP students;  therefore,
it was not on file in his records.  While it may be that the applicant
was miscounseled concerning his entry grade, his grade was correct  at
the time of his entrance on active duty, he knew that he was  entering
as a  first  lieutenant,  and  he  entered  active  duty  under  those
conditions.  More  importantly,  we  have  seen  no  evidence  by  the
applicant  that  would  lead  us  to  believe  that  he  was   treated
differently  from  other  similarly  situated  members  or  that   the
computation of his service credit was contrary to  the  provisions  of
the governing instruction.  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 11 June 2003, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                 Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
                 Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered with  Docket  Number
BC-2003-00603:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Feb 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPAMF2, dated 19 Mar 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAOR, dated 11 Apr 03.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Apr 03.




                             MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                             Panel Chair