RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03684
INDEX NUMBER: 100.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 Nov 05
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her enlistment pay grade be changed from senior airman (E-4) to staff
sergeant (E-5).
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
There should be a waiver available which will allow her to retain her
former rank of E-5. At the time of her discharge from the Navy on
4 September 2001, she held the rank of E-5; however, when she enlisted in
the Air Force on 8 May 2003, she was enlisted in the grade of E-4. She
should not have to go through the same process again.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits extracts from her Navy records.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant served in the United States Navy from 5 August 1996 through 4
September 2001, and held the grade of E-5 at the time of her discharge,
with an effective date of 16 April 2001. She was credited with 5 years, 1
month, and 3 days of active duty service.
She contracted her enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 8 May 2003, for a
period of four years in the grade of senior airman (E-4). She is currently
serving in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), with a date of rank of 1
February 2005, and an effective date of 24 February 2005.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAEQ recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that
applicant’s enlistment grade of E-4 was determined correctly as outlined in
governing directives. The minimum amount of Total Active Federal Military
Service (TAFMS) required to enlist in the Regular Air Force in the grade of
E-5 is 5 years and 6 months; applicant’s TAFMS is 5 years and 1 month. On
8 May 2003, she initialed and signed a DD Form 4/1, Enlistment/Reenlistment
Agreement Document which stated “I am enlisting/reenlisting in the United
States Air Force this date for 4 years and 00 weeks beginning in the pay
grade of E-4.”
The AFPC/DPPAEQ evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 21 January 2005 for review and response within 30 days. However, as of
this date, this office has received no 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 to warrant changing her enlistment pay
grade to staff sergeant (E-5). Applicant served in the United States Navy
from 5 August 1996 through 4 September 2001, and held the grade of E-5 at
the time of her discharge. She was credited with 5 years, 1 month, and 3
days of active duty service. The applicant contends she should have
received a waiver for the time she spent in the Navy and been allowed to
enlist in the Air Force in the grade of staff sergeant. After reviewing
the evidence of record, we find no evidence of error or injustice
concerning her enlistment grade. Since the minimum amount of TAFMS
required to enlist in the Regular Air Force in the grade of E-5 is 5 years
and 6 months, and at the time of her enlistment, her TAFMS was 5 years and
1 month, her enlistment grade was appropriately established as senior
airman. Further, we find no evidence she was promised, or led to believe,
that she would be enlisted in the grade of staff sergeant. To the
contrary, on 8 May 2003, she initialed and signed a DD Form 4/1,
Enlistment/Reenlistment Agreement Document which stated “I am
enlisting/reenlisting in the United States Air Force this date for 4 years
and 00 weeks beginning in the pay grade of E-4.” In view of this, and in
the absence of evidence that her TAFMS was incorrectly calculated, 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-2004-03684
in Executive Session on 23 March 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman, III, Panel Chair
Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Member
Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Sep 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPAEQ, dated 11 Jan 05.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jan 05.
FREDERICK R. BEAMAN, III
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00179
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. On 28 February 2002, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) in the grade of Airman First Class (E-3). At the time of enlistment, the applicant both initialed and signed an AF Form 3006, Enlistment Agreement - Prior Service, stating, “I am enlisting in pay grade E-3.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03656
On 6 February 2003, the applicant enlisted and both initialed and signed an AF Form 3006, Enlistment Agreement - Prior Service, stating “I am enlisting in pay grade E-3. 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. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01305
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. AFI 36-2002, Regular Air Force (RegAF) and Special Category Accessions, governing...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00703
On 21 Oct 02, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years and entered active duty in the grade of SSgt with a DOR of 21 Oct 02. He initialed and signed an AF Form 3006, Enlistment Agreement-Prior Service, stating he was enlisting in the grade of SSgt, that he had no claim to a higher grade, that entitlement to further promotions would be in accordance with regulations in effect at the time, and that provisions do not exist to accelerate promotion due to prior...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00399
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have been eligible for an IEB or SRB because other personnel in the same career field at his technical training school and duty station received a bonus. At the time of the applicant’s initial enlistment with the Air Force, he was an E-4 with over four years of Total Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS); therefore, he is not qualified for an IEB, SRB, or PSRB. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00640
She enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 January 1985 and was released from active duty on 5 April 1988 and transferred to the Reserves of the Air Force on 6 April 1988 and discharged on 3 February 1999. The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 30 May 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00233
His request for supplemental promotion consideration was denied because the order date on the DECOR6 was after the cutoff for cycle 03E5. Applicant’s request for supplemental promotion consideration during cycle 03E5 was denied by AFPC on 20 August 2004, since the AFAM, 1 OLC, recommendation was not placed into official military channels until after selections for cycle 03E5 were announced. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPWB...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01683
AFI 36-2604 states, “Former AFROTC cadets ordered to EAD under Title 10, USC., 2105 and 2107, keep the date of rank specified on their reserve enlistment contract.” It implies that former AFROTC cadets did not have a previous DOR. Eighteen or nineteen year old cadet disenrolled from AFROTC have to give back time or money to the Air Force and have to be involuntarily recalled to active duty. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00850
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 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 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00600
On 16 August 2001, the applicant submitted a similar appeal to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB). On 21 November 2002, the AFDRB concluded that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority, and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...