RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01334
INDEX CODE: 112.07
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 22 OCT 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her enlistment contract be corrected to reflect an enlistment grade
higher than airman basic (E-1).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She has earned 46 college credits, but currently serves as an airman
basic.
In support of her request, applicant provided copies of a
Comprehensive Transcript from Lakeshore Technical College, and a
University of Wisconsin College Unofficial Academic Transcript.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 24 October 2004 for
a term of 4 years. She currently serves in the grade of airman basic.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/RSS recommends the applicant’s request be denied. RSS states
documentation obtained from the recruiting office does not indicate an
acknowledgement of the applicant having any previous college history
prior to her processing with the recruiter. The record indicated “NA”
for these particular blocks. The transcripts the applicant submitted
indicate she had taken classes during the time frame of 1998 through
2000.
RSS believes had the recruiter queried the applicant correctly, this
information would have been revealed during the interview. This could
have been an injustice on the applicant’s behalf, but, from the
transcripts she submitted, there is no evidence that she met the
qualifications to be awarded a higher enlistment grade. The Lakeshore
Technical Center transcripts has the applicant earning six semester
hours during her attendance from the fall of 1988 through the spring
of 1999. The University of Wisconsin Colleges transcripts indicate
she earned a total of ten semester hours during fall 1999 through
spring 2000.
RSS states with both transcripts there is a cumulative of 16 semester
hours awarded. In order for the applicant to have qualified for a
higher enlistment grade, she required a minimum of 20 semester hours.
RSS states based on the information they have reviewed; there is
insufficient evidence to award the applicant a higher enlistment
grade. While there is an indication that the recruiter did not probe
this area of questioning in a thorough manner, there is not enough
documentation to award the higher grade. If additional documentation
can be obtained to further justify her request, she may resubmit again
for review. All transcripts included in the future must be official
transcripts and not unofficial.
The RSS evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
13 May 2005, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date,
no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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. After a thorough review of the
applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the relief requested
should be granted. We took notice of the 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 its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the member
has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, we find
no compelling basis to warrant favorable consideration of 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-2005-
01334 in Executive Session on 29 June 2005, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
Ms. Patricia A. Robey, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Apr 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/RSS, dated 11 May 05, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 May 05.
GREGORY H. PETKOFF
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00617
The applicant has not provided sufficient documentation to support her contention that she should have enlisted as an airman first class (E-3). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that: a. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 05.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02412
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/RSS states that based on the information they have reviewed, they do not find there is sufficient evidence to award the applicant her request to adjust her enlistment grade. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 28 October 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03794
The above notwithstanding, the Air National Guard OPR has found that, based on the quarter hours she had earned at the time of her enlistment, she should have been enlisted as an Airman and not an Airman Basic. We agree with their finding and therefore recommend that the records be corrected as indicated below. MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY Panel Chair DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC [pic] Office Of The Assistant Secretary AFBCMR BC-2003-03794 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03083
On the date of enlistment, the applicant did not have enough college credits to qualify for a higher enlistment grade. At this time, Recruiting Operations initiated an inquiry into his enlistment processing. AFRCI 36-2001, Air Force Reserve Recruiting Procedures, Table 5-1, Note 5 states: Documents presented after enlistment may be used as a basis for changing the authorized enlistment grade up until the individual’s Basic Military Training graduation date.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98- 00468 COUNSEL : NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her grade at the time she enlisted in the Air National Guard be changed to Airman. Her request was denied because the college transcript from the college was dated 20 January 1998, which is after her date of enlistment. However, she has provided a copy of her college transcript and at the time of her enlistment she...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01558
The Military Personnel Database (MilPDS) indicates the applicant is a member of the Air Force Reserve currently serving in the grade of airman first class (E-3) with a date of rank of 15 Dec 2005. RSOO notes she was processed as a Prior Service applicant, active duty Air Force from 15 September 1987 to 16 May 1988, rank at time of separation, E-2, Re Code: 3A, SPN/SPN: MDF, Character of Service: Honorable. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 June 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04714
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of her enlistment, she had enough college credits to enlist in the grade of A1C. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PO recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence...
She enlisted on 11 Jun 98 and the college transcript is dated after the fact. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 14 Dec 98 for review and response. WAYNE R. GRACIE Panel Chair INDEX CODE: 131.05 AFBCMR 98-02595 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC--2006-01920
Regardless of her educational level or the number of college credits at the time of her enlistment, she was not authorized to enlist at a grade higher than E-1. Headquarters AFRC records of bonus listings only go back to 1987; however, there were no bonuses or advanced pay grade for enlistment into critical AFSC’s in 1979 either. RSO states that, based on the information they have reviewed, there is no evidence to award the applicant a higher enlistment grade.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01307
In this respect, a majority notes that, at the time of enlistment, the applicant initialed indicating he was counseled on the CLRP option and elected not to participate in the program. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. A majority found that applicant had not provided substantial evidence of error or injustice...