RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01920
INDEX CODE: 112.02
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 25 DEC 06
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her enlistment contract be corrected to reflect she enlisted as an
airman first class (E-3) instead of an airman basic (E-1).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
When she entered the Air Force, she had earned 167 quarter hours of
college credits and she should have entered the Air Force as an E-3
instead of an E-1. She states the recruiter did not ask if she had
college credits. She believes other mistakes were made by the
recruiter and the Military Entrance Processing Stations because they
did not award her an enlistment bonus when she entered the Air Force.
In support of her request, applicant provided AFRES Form 96, Request
and Authorization for Active Duty Training/Nonprior Service, DD Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and copies
of her College Transcript from Cincinnati Technical College, and the
University of Cincinnati.
The complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Data extracted from the personnel data system and her DD Form 214
reflects the applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Air
Force Reserves (AFR) on 15 Mar 79 in the grade of E-1. She has been
progressively promoted to the grade of Senior Master Sergeant.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/RSO recommends the applicant’s request be denied. RSO states
applicant entered the AFR on 15 Mar 79 in the grade of an E-1. AFRES
33-1, Recruiting and Enlistment Procedures for the United States AFR,
dated 17 Apr 78 did not have a provision for awarding advanced rank
based upon college credit or entry into a critical Air Force Specialty
Code. 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. By applicants own admission, she
found out about the enlistment bonus while attending technical
training school in 1979.
RSO states that, based on the information they have reviewed, there is
no evidence to award the applicant a higher enlistment grade. There is
no evidence she was entitled to receive a bonus or an advanced pay
grade.
The RSO 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 4
Aug 05, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office. (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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. 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-01920 in Executive Session on 13 September 2006, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Panel Chair
Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member
Ms. Teri G. Spoutz, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 June 2006, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 30 June 2006.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 August 2006.
MICHAEL J. MAGLIO
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02096
On 13 Nov 13, the applicant was commissioned in the grade of captain (O-3) in the Reserve of the Air Force. While we note that despite the fact the applicant was led to believe she would be accessed in the grade of captain, her appointment in the grade of first lieutenant was procedurally correct and consistent with the constructive service credit (CSC) policy prescribed in AFI 36-2005, which was the policy in effect at the time of the applicants accession once the FY13 CSC policy expired...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00780
She did not receive any notice of the debt during the eight months after her separation from the Air Force. JA states the Air Force Shaping Program provided certain individuals with an opportunity to voluntarily opt out of their enlistments on the condition that they repay any bonuses received. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the applicant should be given the relief requested.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01701
The lender told her to get some form from the Air Force, but the recruiter did not know which form it was. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that at the time of her enlistment on 4 March 2003, she elected to participate in the College Loan Repayment Program (CLRP), rather than the Montgomery G.I. The following documentary...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00257
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was told by her recruiter that she would be able to participate in the CLRP program and further told that once she provided a promissory letter the Air Force would automatically pay for her loan. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant entered the delayed enlistment program on 18 Sep 02 and enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 13 May 03. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01434
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01434 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her entry/commissioning grade be changed to Captain (Capt/O-3) rather than First Lieutenant (1Lt/02). AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRS/RSO recommends approval for the Air Force to issue back pay and rank credit to the grade of captain. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02153
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02153 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 21 JANUARY 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 27 March 1989, the discharge authority directed that she be discharged with a general under honorable...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01103
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He has tried to reenlist in the Air Force Reserve from the Army National Guard; however, the Air Force Reserve recruiters made false statements about his record and discharge. At that time, he was credited with prior service in the U.S. Navy from 27 December 1968 through 26 December 1972 when he was discharged in the grade E-3. Accordingly, we are not inclined to favorably consider the applicant’s...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02221
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02221 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 25 JANUARY 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Narrative Reason for Separation (Unsatisfactory Performance) be removed. She received an Enlisted Performance Report closing 6 November 1989 in which the overall evaluation was 1....
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02062
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 27 Jun 79 in the grade of airman. The specific reasons for this action were on 29 May 90, he received a Letter of Reprimand for failing to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D).