RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00850
            INDEX CODE:  131.05

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Date of Rank (DOR) to the grade of airman  first  class  (E-3)  be
changed from 19 Apr 01 to 7 Mar 00.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She changed services from Reserve to active  duty  with  no  break  in
service.  She has not served as a Reservist.  She immediately  entered
active duty after her technical training.  She  was  not  awarded  any
time for the 9 months and 16 days she  served  on  active  duty  while
performing technical training, which would affect her DOR.

In support of  her  request,  the  applicant  submits  copies  of  her
enlistment oath, DD Forms 214 and 215, ANG/USAFR Point Credit  Summary
and additional documents associated  with  the  issues  cited  in  her
contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission,  with  attachments,
is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her enlistment in the Air Force Reserve on  7 Mar
00 for a period of six years in the grade of airman first class (E-3),
with a DOR of 7 Mar 00.  On 23 May 00, while in  Reserve  status,  she
entered active duty to complete military training courses.  On  8  Mar
01, she was released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force
Reserve under the provisions of AFI  36-3209  (Completion  of  Initial
Active Duty Training (non-prior service Reservist).  She had completed
a total of 9 months and 16 days of active service and 2 years  and  15
days of prior inactive service.  On 18 Apr 01, she was  relieved  from
her Reserve assignment and honorably discharged.  On 19  Apr  01,  the
applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years
in the grade of E-3.  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 EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPAO recommends the application be denied. DPPAO  states  the
applicant signed Air Force Form 3006, Enlistment Agreement, on 19  Apr
01 stating that her Date of Rank (DOR) would be her date of enlistment
if she never served in the Regular Air Force.  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  former
members of any regular component  enlisting  on  or  after  their  4th
anniversary of their adjusted Date of Separation (DOS)  or  in  a  pay
grade higher  than  the  grade  held  at  separation  from  a  Regular
component due to promotion  while  serving  in  a  Reserve  component,
provided they meet the Total Active Federal Military  Service  (TAFMS)
criteria in grade.”  Based on the governing Air Force instruction, the
applicant’s Date of Rank is correct.  The  HQ  AFPC/DPPAO  evaluation,
with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  25
Apr 03 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request for additional information  concerning
a 23  Jan  02  HQ  AFPC/DPPAEQ  e-mail  the  applicant  submitted,  HQ
AFPC/DPPAE provided the following advisory opinion.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied.  DPPAE states that
on 4 Nov 01, HQ AFPC/DPPAEQ (Enlisted Accessions) received  a  request
from the applicant to confirm her DOR.  On 22 Jan 03,  the  supporting
Military Personnel Flight (MPF) was informed that the 19  Apr  01  E-3
DOR was correct.  On 23 Jan 02, an E-8 from applicant’s duty  location
contacted DPPAE several times to determine the DOR.  In an  effort  to
provide an interim response while the DOR Subject Matter Expert  (SME)
performed wartime duties, incorrect information was provided to the E-
8 (23 Jan 02 e-mail  provided  by  applicant).   Although  the  e-mail
incorrectly states “She is authorized ½ of her initial date of  rank,”
the referenced Air Force Instruction (AFI)  is  correct.   The  e-mail
further  identified  that  “Again,  this  is  an   approximation   for
adjustment…(name of AFPC SME authority) can  look  it  over  and  make
needed adjustments.”  Upon the SME’s return that afternoon, an  e-mail
was sent (23 Jan 02) to the E-8 identifying the error in  the  interim
response and confirmed the 19 Apr  01  DOR  was  correct.   Since  the
applicant did not submit a copy of  the  SME’s  response,  a  copy  is
provided for the Board’s consideration.

DPPAE indicates that to qualify for a DOR adjustment, the  grade  must
have been earned  from  a  Regular  component.   On  19  Apr  01,  the
applicant had 9 months and  16  days  Total  Active  Federal  Military
Service (TAFMS) and had never served in a Regular component.   Counter
to the applicant’s claim of having never served in  the  Reserve,  the
applicant was a Reservist, serving on a Reserve  enlistment  contract,
and at the time she attended basic  military  training  and  technical
school, she was a Reservist serving on active duty  orders,  published
by the Reserve.  The time served on her  Reserve  training  orders  is
creditable toward TAFMS, not  DOR.   The  applicant  did  not  provide
documentation to support her claim she had previously served as an E-3
in a Regular component.  The applicant’s DOR was computed  in  a  fair
and equitable manner, within the governing directives,  and  based  on
the terms of her enlistment contract.  The HQ  AFPC/DPPAE  evaluation,
with attachment, is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  18
Jul 03 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit F).
_________________________________________________________________

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
appropriate Air Force office (HQ AFPC/DPPAE) and adopt  the  rationale
expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed
to sustain her burden that she has suffered  either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  In this respect, we note that the applicant was  a  member
of the Air Force Reserve during the time she was  attending  technical
training on active duty.  Inasmuch as she was not serving in a Regular
component during the period  under  review,  she  does  not  meet  the
requirements for a DOR adjustment.  With regard to the 23  Jan  02  HQ
AFPC/DPPAEQ e-mail provided by the applicant, we note that the  office
of  primary  responsibility  immediately  notified   the   appropriate
individual of the inaccurate interim e-mail response and confirmed the
applicant’s 19 Apr 01 DOR as being correct.  In view of the above  and
absent 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 Docket  Number  BC-2003-
00850 in Executive Session on 8 July 2003 and 4 September 2003,  under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
                  Ms. Martha Maust, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Feb 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAO, dated 16 Apr 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 14 Jul 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jul 03.




                                   JOHN L. ROBUCK
                                   Panel Chair