Search Decisions

Decision Text

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.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He joined the Air Force on 21 Aug 01  and  was  given  a  direct  duty
assignment as a 3-skill level based on his ten years of experience and
his Federal Aviation Airframe and Powerplant license.  He was  granted
an exception to policy by HQ AFPC to be allowed to test for  technical
sergeant (TSgt) (E-6).  He tested on 12 Nov 02 out  of  cycle.   After
testing, he found out that his DOR had been  changed  to  25  Mar  01,
rendering him ineligible for testing and  resulting  in  the  test  he
completed not being graded.

When he inquired at the military personnel flight as to  why  his  DOR
had changed, he was referred to AFI 36-2604.  The AFI states  that  if
members were out less than four years they would  get  half  of  their
time-in-grade (TIG).  An individual at his local MPF contacted HQ AFPC
to get a determination as to whether his DOR should be  adjusted.   He
was advised by, in his opinion, an unprofessional e-mail that  he  was
only entitled to 25% credit because he was off active  duty  for  more
than 2 years.  Since he had enlisted in the Air  Force  prior  to  the
date of the new AFI, he inquired as to whether he would fall under the
old AFI.  He was  advised  again  by  an  e-mail  that  he  considered
unprofessional that no one is grandfathered.  After he  read  the  new
AFI (18 Dec 01), he did not notice any  difference  in  the  paragraph
that applied to him.  When he spoke to an individual at  his  MPF,  he
was advised that the new AFI did not apply to him.

The applicant  provides  an  overview  of  his  accomplishments  since
entering the Air Force.  He asks the Board to find an answer regarding
his DOR and correct his records if needed.

In support of his appeal, applicant provides copies  of  his  previous
service documents, copies of the e-mails from AFPC addressing his DOR,
and a copy of his approved exception to policy to test  for  promotion
out of cycle.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the U.S. Marine  Corps  on     15
Nov 91 and was released from active duty on 14 Nov 97 in the grade  of
E-5 after completion of required service.  The applicant  enlisted  in
the South Carolina Army National Guard on 29 Oct 99 in the grade of E-
5 and was honorably separated on 28 Oct 00.  He enlisted  in  the  Air
Force on 21 Aug 01 in the grade of E-5.   The  Personnel  data  system
reflects his Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as 21
Aug 95 with a DOR in the grade of E-5 of 25 Mar 01.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAOR recommends that the applicant’s request to adjust his  DOR
be denied.  Based on AFI 36-2604, dated 1 Jul 99, paragraph  8.4,  the
applicant’s DOR of 25 Mar 01 is correct.

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
30 May 03 for review and response 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.   Although  the  applicant  was
granted  an  exception  to  policy   promotion   eligibility   waiver,
unfortunately it was based on the incorrect date of rank reflected  in
the Military Personnel Data System  at  the  time,  the  date  he  was
promoted while serving in the Marine Corps.  The date of  rank  of  25
March 2001, which rendered him ineligible, is in fact correct based on
applicable Air Force policy.  We  note  the  applicant’s  achievements
since returning to the Air Force, his exceptional qualifications,  and
his desire to advance in his career as quickly as possible.   However,
to  change  his  date  of  rank  to  the  earlier  date  would  ignore
established  Air  Force  policy,  which  insures  fair  and  equitable
treatment of all others similarly situated.  Therefore, we do not find
a compelling basis to recommend granting the relief requested.

_______________________________________________________________

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-2003-
00604 in Executive Session on 16 July 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:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Dec 02.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAOR, dated 22 May 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03222

    Original file (BC-2003-03222.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 7 May 03 he was notified that because his DIEMS date was 8 Nov 85 and not 17 Sep 86 he received an erroneous CSB payment. On 7 May 02, he received notification that due to problems with the military personnel data system at the time of his election, he was not entitled to the CSB payment because his DIEMS date was prior to 1 Aug 86. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03805

    Original file (BC-2002-03805.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. _____________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03027

    Original file (BC-2003-03027.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-03027 INDEX CODE 131.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) for E-4/senior airman be changed from 8 Nov 01 to 23 Jul 00. On 8 Nov 01, he joined the Air Force and was reduced to E-4. AFI 36-2604, Service Dates and Dates of Rank, states that if a member returns on...

  • 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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-02950

    Original file (BC-2005-02950.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with AFI 36-2604, “Service Dates and Dates of Rank,” and the DOR worksheet, his DOR should have been 15 Jun 01. The Enlisted Promotions Branch then supplementally considered him for promotion during cycle 03E6 using his scores from cycle 04E6 (cycle 03E6 scores became obsolete 1 Jan 04). In those situations where an individual becomes eligible for earlier promotion consideration, either through the AFBCMR process or, in the applicant’s case, a change to promotion data through...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01381

    Original file (BC-2006-01381.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Prior to 1 Jul 92, 100% (day-for-day) service credit was earned by personnel completing the EDP. The governing Reserve AFI and the active duty instruction provide for the same result--half credit for the time the applicant spends in school. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant awarding the applicant 100% credit for time spent in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0101834

    Original file (0101834.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 Nov 00, applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an E-3, and was given a DOR equal to her date of enlistment (DOE). AFI 36-2604, Service Dates and Dates of Rank, is the governing directive for computing dates of ranks. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01841

    Original file (BC-2007-01841.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Her date of rank (DOR) be adjusted to reflect her previous active duty Reserve service. The complete DPPAOR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded stating that because of misinformation from her recruiter, she was not able to apply for a waiver or exception to policy concerning Total Active Federal Military Service "TAFMS" requirements to her rank or...

  • 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-2003-02315

    Original file (BC-2003-02315.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPPAOR states that in accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2604, Service Dates and Dates of Rank, paragraph 8.4, the applicant’s date of rank was computed correctly. DPPPWB states that based on the applicant’s adjusted DOR, the first time he was eligible for promotion consideration to TSgt was cycle 03E6 (promotions effective August 2003 - July 2004). If the Board grants the applicant’s request to change his DOR to 19 September 1999, he would receive 28.5 weighted points for TIG and...