RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01370
INDEX CODE: 112.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her records be corrected to reflect she enlisted in the grade of staff
sergeant (E-5) rather than airman first class (E-3).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her nine years of weekend Reserve drills should have been included in
determining her enlistment pay grade in the Regular Air Force.
In support of her appeal, the applicant provided an expanded
statement, various certificates, her transcript, and other documents
associated with the matter under review.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant’s available military personnel records indicate she was
honorably released from active duty on 15 Jul 00 under the provisions
of AFI 36-3208 (Completion of Required Active Duty Training) and
transferred to the Air Force Reserve in the grade of staff sergeant.
She was credited with 1 year and 11 days of total active service, and
5 years, 3 months, and 17 days of total inactive service.
On 13 Mar 03, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a
period of four years in the grade of airman first class (E-3).
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
airman first class (E-3), with a current grade date of rank (CGDOR) of
13 Mar 03. Her Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
13 May 02.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial noting that at the time of the
applicant’s enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 13 Mar 03, she both
initialed and signed an AF Form 3006 indicating she was enlisting in
the pay grade of E-3, and that she had no claim to a higher grade.
According to AFPC/DPPAE, the applicant’s enlistment grade was
determined in accordance with the governing directive and in a fair
equitable manner.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In her response, the applicant indicated she recognizes she is legally
obligated to serve her enlistment without claim to a higher grade.
However, she was influenced by her recruiter to believe she was a
strong candidate for officer training school (OTS), and that by
enlisting quickly, with an age waiver, she would be able to attend OTS
in the near future. She relied heavily on this belief when she signed
her enlistment paperwork. After her application was denied, she
realized she would have to serve as an E-3 for a longer period of time
than she originally intended. For equitable purposes, and given her
maturity, experience level, and prior educational background, she
believes her enlistment pay grade should be reevaluated. She served
honorably in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of staff sergeant and
merely asks to continue to serve in that grade while on active duty.
Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
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 AFPC/DPPAE
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 the applicant’s enlistment pay
grade (E-3) in the Regular Air Force was erroneous, or she was treated
differently from other similarly situated individuals, 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-01370 in Executive Session on 22 Jul 04, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Apr 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 10 Jun 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jun 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, applicant, dated 12 Jul 04, w/atch.
LAURENCE M. GRONER
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00568
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00568 INDEX NUMBER: 110.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Separation Code of “JBK,” discharged after completion of required service, be changed. Her “2X” Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code, “First-term, second-term, or career airman considered but not selected for...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02705
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02705 INDEX CODE: 100.06 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 10 Jun 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4H (Serving suspended punishment pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) be changed so that he may enlist in the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00637
The following is a resume of her EPR profile: Period Ending Promotion Recommendation 28 Jan 03 5 12 Sep 02 3* 09 Nov 01 5 09 Nov 00 5 09 Nov 99 5 14 Feb 99 5 14 Feb 98 5 14 Feb 97 5 * - Contested Report The applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 2 Apr 04 for review and comment...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01050
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01050 INDEX NUMBER: 110.02 COUNSEL: J.C. HERNANDEZ HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation be changed. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter,...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2005-00316
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00316 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 29 JUL 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The reenlistment eligibility (RE) code reflected on his DD Form 214 be changed from “4H” to “1J.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02430
However, if the applicant has evidence to show the effective date or the expiration date of the Control Roster action, the Board may consider changing the RE code. HQ AFPC/DPSOA’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant notes that the Control Roster would have expired by the time he was discharged. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOA, dated 4 Sep 07.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00642
She received 13 Airman/Enlisted Performance Reports for the combined rating period 7 March 1989 through 30 November 1999, in which the overall evaluations were “9,” “4,” “5,” 4,” “5,” “5,” “4,” “5,” “5,” “5,” “5,” “5,” and “5.” On 24 December 2000, applicant was honorably discharged by reason of completion of required active service, after serving 12 years, 9 months, and 17 days on active duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01939
Therefore, the first date that the applicant was eligible for reenlistment was 1 May 2004. Evidence supports that even though the applicant was eligible to reenlist upon receiving his 3-skill level in June 2003, it appears his action to delay his reenlistment until March 2004 was solely his own choice. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 15 September 2004, under the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-00666
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2001-00666 INDEX CODE: 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 4J, “Entered into Phase I of the Air Force Weight Program, or the unit commander has declared the airman ineligible to reenlist for a period of Phase II or probation,” be changed. Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00475
The record contains one airman performance report with an overall rating of “9.” On 15 Apr 87, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was recommending that she be discharged from the Air Force for misconduct – drug abuse. The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the correct narrative reason for discharge was “misconduct – drug abuse.” Applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. ...