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.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is prior service and was told he must lose a stripe in order  to
return to active duty; however, he is not aware of any such rule in
any AFI.  Further, he has been unjustly denied the right  to  apply
for a waiver to have his rank reinstated.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement;
a copy of AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru  TSgt),
closing 4 Aug 02; a copy of Special Order AM-100, dated 21 Mar  01;
a statement of service,  dated  5  Apr  01,  and  other  supporting
documents.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is a prior service member who served in the  Regular  Air
Force from 17 Nov 83 and until he was honorably transferred to  the
Air Force Reserve on 17 Sep 88.

He enlisted in the Arkansas Army National Guard on 21 Jan  93,  and
was promoted  to  the  grade  of  technical  sergeant  (TSgt/E-6)on
1 Jan 01.  He was honorably discharged on 28 Feb 01  for  immediate
reenlistment in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on  1 March 2001,  in
the grade of staff sergeant.  He is currently serving in the  grade
of staff sergeant, with a date of rank of 1 Mar 01.  At the time of
enlistment, applicant  had  accumulated  5  years,  10 months,  and
17 days of total active federal military service.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPAEQ recommended denial of the application.  On 1 Mar 01,
applicant enlisted into the Regular Air Force in the grade of  E-5.
AFI  36-2002,  Regular  Air  Force  (RegAF)  and  Special  Category
Accessions, governing directive for determining enlistment  grades,
outlines the  minimum  amount  of  Total  Active  Federal  Military
Service (TAFMS) required to enlist in a grade previously held in  a
branch other than the RegAF for technical sergeant as  10 years  of
service.

On 1 Mar 2001, he both initialed  and  signed  the  AF  Form  3006,
Enlistment Agreement - Prior Service, signifying enlistment in  the
pay  grade  of  E-5  and  that  he  understood  further   promotion
entitlements would be in accordance with regulations in  effect  at
the time of his eligibility  for  promotions.   Provisions  do  not
exist to accelerate promotion due to his prior service or  for  the
number of years he was enlisting.

His enlistment grade was determined in  accordance  with  governing
directives and he enlisted in the appropriate grade of E-5.  By his
initials and signature, they found no evidence  the  applicant  was
misled into enlisting into the RegAF as an E-5.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB  found  no  errors  in  the  applicant’s  enlistment
contract or enlistment grade of staff sergeant  (SSgt).   Based  on
his DOR to SSgt of 1 Mar 01, he was  considered  for  promotion  to
TSgt during cycles 03E6 and 04E6  and  was  a  nonselect  for  both
cycles.

HQ AFPC/DPPPE indicated based on the applicant’s DOR of 1  Mar  01,
all reports with a close out date of 1  Mar  01  and  later  should
reflect the rank of SSgt.

Both DPPPWB and DPPPE recommended denial of the application.

The complete Air Force evaluations are attached at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant feels his background and experience entitles him  to  the
grade  of  technical  sergeant  (TSgt).    The   reason   for   his
nonselection for promotion was due to an excessive delay in testing
which caused him a lot of mental anguish waiting for a decision  as
to whether he should test and what test he should take.

Additionally, he was misled into believing he could apply  to  have
his contract corrected and he is aware of this being  done  in  the
past for other individuals.  He believes that the miscalculation of
his service time is further proof that his records should be fixed.

Applicant complete response, with attachments, 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 not timely filed; however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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 opinions  and  recommendations  of
the Air Force offices 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.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  Applicant’s contention that he has  been  unjustly  denied  the
right to apply for a waiver to have his  rank  reinstated  is  duly
noted.  However, other than his own arguments, no evidence has been
provided to show that he made such an appeal and that it was either
erroneously or unjustly denied by responsible Air Force  officials.


___________________________________________________________________

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-2004-01305 in Executive Session on 15 December 2004,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Panel Chair
      Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Apr 01 (sic), w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAEQ, undated.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 5 Aug 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Aug 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Aug 04, w/atchs.




                                   FREDERICK R. BEAMAN III
                                   Panel Chair