RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00317
            INDEX CODE:  112.02, 128.06

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His rank of appointment be changed from captain to lieutenant  colonel
along with the appropriate  reconciliation  of  his  military  service
dates.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He qualified for Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 44M3 (Qualified)  and
not 44M1 (Entry).  He believes his credentials relating to  fellowship
training in both pulmonary and critical care  medicine  may  not  have
been included or properly considered in his original application  with
the New Jersey Air  National  Guard  (NJANG).   Additionally,  he  has
completed  sub-specialty  training  in  pulmonary  and  critical  care
medicine and is certified in all three areas (critical care, pulmonary
and internal medicine) and is now more than 10 years post-training.

In support of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  copies  of
certificates of completion of medical training, a page from Air  Force
Manual  (AFM)  36-2105,  and  pertinent  copies  of  his   appointment
paperwork.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a member of the NJANG, was appointed in  the  grade  of
captain with the NJANG on 19 October 2002.  Based on his education and
experience, he was awarded constructive service  credit  resulting  in
the following service dates:

      TYSD: 19 October 1992
      PSD:  19 October 1996
      TFCSD:19 October 2002

He is currently serving in the NJANG in the grade of major.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPPI recommends denial.  DPPI contends that, based on the evidence
provided by the appointment documents included in his application,  it
is evident the applicant was awarded the correct  service  credit  and
was appointed in the correct grade.

DPPI’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reiterates his contention that he was  not  awarded  service
credit for his full-time experience on completion of his training.  He
provides  excerpts  from  Air   Force   Instruction   (AFI)   36-2005,
Appointment in Commissioned Grades and Designation and  Assignment  in
Professional Categories – Reserve of the Air Force and  United  States
Air Force, dated 19 May 2003, to support his request  for  appointment
in the grade of lieutenant colonel.

He addresses the DPPI contention that AFI 36-2005, Table 2.1, Note  8,
states that applicants with less than 14 years service credit will  be
appointed in the grade of captain.  He argues that Note 8  applies  to
officers entering extended active duty only, and  the  note  does  not
apply to him as a guardsman.  He further states that Table 2.4, Rule 6
states “…one-half year of service credit is to  be  awarded  for  each
year of experience up to a maximum of three years.”  Note 5  in  Table
2.4 further clarifies that this credit will be computed from  the  day
after the officer completed the education listed until the day  before
the appointment.  His last day of education was 30 June 1993  and  the
day before his appointment was 18 October 2002.  Based on Rule  6,  he
should have been awarded the maximum of three years service credit for
the  nine-years,  three  months,  and  eighteen  days   of   full-time
experience.

In addition, Table 2.4, Rule 7, Note 6, states the  applicant  may  be
awarded service credit for specialty designated as critical or  urgent
in the amount of one year for each year of experience.   This  service
credit is only to be awarded if the applicant has received the maximum
credit under Rule 6.  He states he is currently serving in a  critical
AFSC (receiving a cash bonus) and believes Rule 7 applies to him.   He
believes the following service credit should be awarded to him:

            Education/Training – Ten years.
            Service Credit under Rules 6 & 7 of AFI 36-2005, Table 2.4
– 9 years, 3 months, and 18 days.

His total service credit would then be 19 years, 3 Months, and 18 days
that would qualify  him  to  have  been  appointed  in  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel.  While he acknowledges section 2.18.2.1 of AFI 36-
2005 wherein it states that total entry grade shall not be  more  than
required for an officer to be eligible for an original appointment  in
the grade of major, he also notes that Section 2.18.2.2 states ANG/MPP
may waive the requirement and appoint lieutenant colonels in  shortage
specialties designated by NGB/SG.

Applicant’s complete submission, 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 the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of
an  error  or  injustice.   Based  on  the  evidence   provided,   the
applicant’s constructive service credit appears to be correct,  as  is
the grade he was appointed in.  Therefore, in the absence of  evidence
to the contrary, 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  issue(s)   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-
2004-00317 in Executive Session on 6 April 2005, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
      Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member
      Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Jan 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 20 Oct 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, APPLICANT, dated 15 Nov 04, w/atch.




                                   CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
                                   Panel Chair