RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02155
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His date of rank and time in grade as an Airman First Class be reinstated.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His work performance during his first enlistment did not start off well and
he did not get along with his First Sergeant. After some counselings and
letters of reprimand, he realized he needed to shape up. However, he was
discharged with a General discharge. The Air Force Discharge Review Board
felt his discharge was in error and changed his discharge to Honorable, his
reenlistment code and reason for discharge. After several months he
reenlisted in the Air Force and is currently in his prior service field of
fuels apprentice. During his prior service, he did not lose a stripe or
receive an Article 15. This is why he does not really think it's fair he
should start with a new date of rank. He is very motivated and excited
about being back in and getting a good career going again. Receiving his
rank back would only enhance his motivation and his Air Force career. He
is aware the regulation states he must have been in 24 months in order to
keep his original rank, but he is asking the Board to look at the fact that
he didn't need to be kicked out and that he fought for two solid years to
get his second shot. His track record so far has been very good and he will
continue to prove he is a good troop.
In support of his request applicant provides a personal statement, a copy
of his DD Form 214, a copy of the AFDRB Board hearing record, and a copy of
his Certificate of Enlistment with special orders.
The applicant’s submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 3 July 2002, the applicant was honorably released from active duty in
the grade of airman first class with a date of rank of 6 July 2001 and an
effective date of 29 August 2001. At the time of his discharge he had
served 1 year, 1 month and 11 days on active duty. He entered his most
recent enlistment contract on 2 March 2004 in the grade of airman first
class with a date of rank and effective date of 2 March 2004.
On 24 April 2003, the Air Force Discharge Review Board reviewed and
approved the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded to
honorable, the reason for his discharge be changed to Secretarial Authority
and his reenlistment code be changed to 3K.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE recommends the application be denied. DPPAE states the
applicant entered active duty on 2 March 2004 under the Prior Service
Program and was aware of the prior service DOR policy. The DPPAE
evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 24 September 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was sent to the
applicant for review and comment. As of this date, this office has not
received a 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 office of primary
responsibility that the applicant does not meet the criteria for a date of
rank (DOR) or time in grade adjustment. In this respect, it appears the
applicant’s DOR for E-3 was calculated in accordance with the governing Air
Force instruction in effect at the time he enlisted. We have seen no
evidence by the applicant showing he was treated differently than others
similarly situated or that his DOR was contrary to the provisions of the
governing instruction. In the absence of such evidence, 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 14 December 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02155
was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Jul 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant’s Personnel Record.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 14 Sep 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Sep 04.
ROBERT S. BOYD
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02493
Since the applicant was in confinement until 7 May 2003, he was not eligible for promotion to airman until 8 May 2003 (6 months’ TIG) and was eligible for promotion to A1C on 8 March 2004 (10 months’ TIG). We note that in his current grade of airman first class, he reaches his Expiration Term of Service on 8 December 2004 and must separate. Therefore, after weighing the evidence presented, we believe a more equitable remedy would be to provide the applicant the opportunity to reenlist with...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01995
Instead, they record Army Reserve promotions under the grade of sergeant (E- 5) on a Department of the Army (DA) Form 4187, Personnel Action. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 2 September 2003, she enlisted in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of airman first class, with a date of rank of 8 July 2000, rather than in...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02856
Therefore, he was not eligible for promotion to airman until that date. He is granted a waiver and is eligible to reenlist in the Regular Air Force. He is granted a waiver and is eligible to reenlist in the Regular Air Force.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00075
If the applicant had not been court-martialed and reduced to the grade of AB, he would have been promoted to the grade of SRA on 16 Feb 04, provided there were no ineligibility conditions and he had the recommendation of his commander. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB notes the applicant’s incorrect promotion to airman and A1C and provides details regarding the applicant’s promotion eligibility and the pertinent DORs based on various circumstances. A...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03585
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 17 July 1978, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the age of 17 for a period of 6 years. On 24 April 1980, the applicant received a record of counseling for failure to report to work. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00503
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00503 INDEX CODE: 131.09 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His record be changed to indicate he received a 5-skill level in his Air Force Specialty (AFS) and that his pay grade be changed to senior airman (SRA/E-4). DPPPWB states that although he met the time in grade and time in service...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03584
The Board majority specifically made note of the fact that, in his response to the recommendation for discharge submitted on 5 May 1997, the applicant stated, “I feel that the Air Force is definitely a good thing for some people, but just not for me. In responding to his recommendation for discharge, he stated that his “personality does not meet the standards of a military member” and that he was “incompatible with the Air Force way of life.” There is no doubt whatsoever Applicant was...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03591
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03591 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His grade of senior airman (E-4) be reinstated. On 21 January 2003, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment on him under Article 15, UCMJ. After reviewing the applicant’s submission and the evidence of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-02219
Applicant’s military personnel records reveal that, on 8 March 1997, the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserve under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (completion of active required service). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: HQ AFPC/DPPAOR states the applicant’s service dates and date of rank to the grade of E-4 are correct. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F).
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01938
Specifically, he was serving on a suspended punishment pursuant to an Article 15 at the time of his separation. In accordance with Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3208, “Airmen separating with RE code 4H or 4I will be separated with SPD code JBK.” He was serving on a suspended punishment pursuant to an Article 15 at the time of his separation thereby validating the SPD and RE code he received. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...