RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-00703
INDEX CODE 131.05
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His grade at the time of his enlistment (staff sergeant (SSgt)) be
changed to technical sergeant (TSgt).
Or, in the alternative, his date of rank (DOR) to SSgt be changed from
21 Oct 02 to 1 Jul 96 and he be allowed to test for TSgt during cycle
03E6.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
In the last week of Aug 01 when he was in the Air Force Reserves, he
was informed that his career field was insufficiently manned and the
Air Force needed prior service experience to fill in the gaps. He
contacted his local recruiter and the immediate supervisor to return
to active duty. During most of the 13 months Air Force Recruiting took
to process his application, he was informed he would be able to retain
his current rank of TSgt when he returned to active duty. A few months
prior to his enlistment on 21 Oct 02, he was informed he would have to
return as a SSgt because he was a few months short of the minimum 10
years of Total Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS). Additionally,
all of his prior time in grade (TIG) for SSgt and TSgt was wiped out.
As a result, he volunteered in good faith for an assignment for
Operation Enduring Freedom to make up the few months he lacked. He
told his recruiter he was deploying overseas to make up the time he
needed to keep his current grade of TSgt. Despite promises to the
contrary, the --- recruiting squadron and recruiting group
incompetently handled his case by delaying his application process and
canceling his job reservation. He was then pressured to enlist “now or
never” as a SSgt, not realizing his DOR to SSgt would be that
enlistment date. He worked long and hard to achieve TSgt, but now his
record for the last seven years has been wiped clean over a few months
of TAFMS. Plus, his SSgt DOR hampers his career progression by
preventing him from testing for two cycles. He asks that he be granted
one of his requested forms of relief.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted the Regular Air Force on 26 Dec 85. On 31 Jan
95, under the provisions of the Special Separation Benefit early
release program, he was honorably released from active duty in the
grade of senior airman (SRA) with nine years, one month and five days
of TAFMS.
The applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserves and was subsequently
promoted to SSgt on 1 Jul 96 and TSgt on 1 Jul 01. On 21 Nov 01, he
applied for a conditional release from the Reserves for the purpose of
transferring to the Regular Air Force. His request was approved on 13
Dec 01.
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.
AFI 36-2002 is the governing directive for determining enlistment
grades. It outlines the minimum TAFMS required to enlist in a grade
previously held in a branch other than the Regular Air Force. To
enlist in the grade of TSgt, a member must have 10 years of TAFMS;
SSgt requires five years and six months.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPAEQ notes that at the time of his 21 Oct 02 enlistment, the
applicant had accumulated 9 years, 6 months and 17 days of TAFMS. 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 service
or the number of years for which he was enlisting, and that his DOR is
the date of his enlistment in the Regular Air Force. Since the
applicant did not have more than 10 years of TAFMS, he enlisted as a
SSgt. His request should be denied. If the Board wishes to grant
relief, recommend the 5 months and 13 days of TAFMS required for TSgt
be waived and the applicant be enlisted as a TSgt with a DOR of 21 Oct
02, the date of his enlistment in the Regular Air Force.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advises that, based on his DOR to SSgt of 21 Oct 02,
the applicant would not be eligible to test for TSgt until the Feb/Mar
05 timeframe for cycle 05E6. Based on the above and HQ AFPC/DPPAEQ’s
advisory, they recommend denial.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 30 May 03 for review and comment 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice to warrant enlisting the applicant
on 21 Oct 02 in the grade of TSgt. The Air Force approached the
applicant about returning to active duty because it desired the
experience of prior service members in the applicant’s insufficiently
manned career field. At first he was informed that he would be able
to retain his TSgt rank; however, shortly before his reenlistment he
was told he would have to reenlist as a SSgt because he lacked 10
years of TAFMS. As a result, and in good faith, the applicant
volunteered for an overseas assignment in order to acquire the few
additional months of TAFMS he lacked, but was then called back from
deployment in order to enlist “now or never.” The applicant did sign
the enlistment contract indicating he had no claim to a higher grade,
but we believe he felt somewhat pressured into living with a poorly
handled situation. The entire recruitment in this case was sorely
lacking in accurate information and professional processing. In the
vernacular, the applicant appears to have been “jerked around,” and we
do not believe the Air Force does itself any favors when willing,
critically-skilled individuals such as the applicant are short-changed
through no fault of their own. The circumstances of this particular
case unfairly penalized the applicant and should be rectified by
waiving the TAFMS requirement and allowing him to enlist in the grade
of TSgt with a DOR of 21 Oct 02. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB has advised via email
that, with a DOR of 21 Oct 02, the applicant would not be eligible for
promotion consideration to MSgt until cycle 05E7. Therefore, we find
no need to afford the applicant an opportunity to test for
supplemental promotion consideration to MSgt, and recommend his
records be corrected to the extent indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he enlisted in the
Regular Air Force for a period of four (4) years on 21 October 2002 in
the grade of technical sergeant, rather than in the grade of staff
sergeant, with a date of rank of 21 October 2002.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 30 July 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr. Panel Chair
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-00703 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Jan 03, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAEQ, dated 6 May 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 19 May 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.
ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2003-00703
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to , be corrected to show that he enlisted in the
Regular Air Force for a period of four (4) years on 21 October 2002 in
the grade of technical sergeant, rather than in the grade of staff
sergeant, with a date of rank of 21 October 2002.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01305
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01305 INDEX CODE: 131.05 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His rank of technical sergeant be reinstated with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 March 2001 under the provisions of AFI 36-2604, Section 8. AFI 36-2002, Regular Air Force (RegAF) and Special Category Accessions, governing...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00223
On 10 Sep 03, the Board did not restore his SSgt grade but instead promoted him to senior airman effective 9 Apr 03 and waived the HYT restriction so he could be eligible for promotion consideration by the 04E5 cycle. His present reenlistment (RE) code of 4D renders him ineligible to reenlist because of HYT restrictions, i.e., he has not yet been promoted to SSgt. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. HQ AFPC/DPPRR notes the applicant is not reenlistment eligible,...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01741
The applicant’s performance reports and numerous awards are provided at Exhibit B. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advises that, based on the applicant’s current and DOR of 9 Apr 03 for airman, the earliest cycle he would be eligible for promotion consideration to SSgt would be 07E5. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 03.
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02315
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00640
She enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 January 1985 and was released from active duty on 5 April 1988 and transferred to the Reserves of the Air Force on 6 April 1988 and discharged on 3 February 1999. The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 30 May 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01747
In a 15 Nov 02 letter to the applicant, the Superintendent of the --rd Wing IG with the Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) advised that, following an interview, the briefer denied having the conversation with the applicant and asserted she had briefed countless individuals regarding declination statements and was well aware of the ramifications. The handout directed him to the MPF for counsel if his desire was to separate. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2004-03246
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/JA also recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The applicant opines that since the withholding was a discretionary action, he believes it appropriate to discuss the necessity of the action taken by his commander in light of his exemplary record up to the time the action was taken. He states the discretionary action was not required by the circumstances.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02110
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPMB advises that enlisted personnel who are projected for promotion while on active duty do not carry that projected promotion to the Air Force Reserve. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his active duty projected promotion should be transferred to the Reserve. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force...