RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2006-01381
            INDEX CODE: 102.08
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  6 Nov 07
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His time spent in the Educational Delay Program (EDP) be  recalculated
to provide  100%  credit  so  his  dates  of  rank  (DORs)  to  second
lieutenant (2LT), first lieutenant (1LT), and captain would be  13 May
00, 13 May 02, and 13 May 04, respectively, and  his  eligibility  for
promotion consideration to major would change from Calendar Year  2009
(CY09) to CY08.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He obtained his  Bachelor’s  Degree  in  Criminal  Justice  from  East
Carolina University in May 2000.  An  injustice  exists  for  officers
like him who enter educational  delay  status  to  pursue  a  graduate
degree but then come on active duty  in  less  than  two  years.   The
inequity occurs in a student's transition from being governed  by  Air
Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) regulations  to  Air  Force  Personnel
Center (AFPC) regulations.  Specifically, there is an inequity in  how
each organization computes an individual's current grade  DOR  (CGDOR)
and handles promotions for those  individuals  in  the  EDP.   If  his
situation had been governed by superseded directives in  effect  prior
to 1994-1996, he would have received a day-for-day, rather than  half-
day, credit for his time in law school.  He  refers  to  the  case  of
another applicant (Captain P--) and asserts this successful  applicant
told him their cases were similar.

[Note:  Captain P--’s case (BC-2000-01549) was granted by  the  AFBCMR
in October 2000; while in the EDP he completed  the  requirements  for
his Master’s degree in 20 versus 24 months.]

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a  personal  statement
and numerous Air Force Instructions (AFIs).  His complete  submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Prior to 1 Jul 92, 100% (day-for-day) service  credit  was  earned  by
personnel completing the EDP.   This  entitlement  was  eliminated  on
1 Jul 92 and AFI 36-2604 was amended accordingly.

The applicant was commissioned via the  AF  Reserve  Officer  Training
Corps (AFROTC) in the Reserve grade of 2LT on 13 May 00.  As  a  cadet
approved for educational delay to study law, he would  be  reappointed
and ordered to extended active duty (EAD)  upon  completion  of  legal
licensing  requirement,  with  entitlement  to  50%  service   credit.
However, after completing 12  months  of  law  school,  the  applicant
terminated the delay program due to financial reasons and,  on  15 Sep
01, entered active duty as a line officer in the grade of 2LT  with  a
DOR of 14 Jan 01.  He received six months of service credit toward his
rank for his 12 months in school.

The applicant was promoted to the grade of 1LT with a  DOR  of  14 Jan
03, and to the grade of captain with a DOR of 14 Jan 05.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPAOR recommends denial because service  credit  was  awarded
accurately in accordance with AFIs 36-2604 and 36-2005.

A complete copy of the HQ AFPC/DPPAOR evaluation, with attachments, is
at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO indicates they have no  recommendation  as  this  is  an
accession issue.  If the appeal is granted, the applicant’s DORs would
need to be adjusted, as would his eligibility for promotion to major.

A complete copy of the HQ AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/JA recommends denial, noting the applicant fails to articulate
a basis for his belief he was treated inequitably.  He fails  to  cite
any applicable Reserve provision in any applicable Reserve instruction
that would give him a different DOR.  The governing  Reserve  AFI  and
the active duty instruction provide for the same  result--half  credit
for  the  time  the  applicant  spends  in  school.   The  applicant’s
contention he would have  been  automatically  promoted  had  he  been
called to duty “just one month later” is irrelevant because he was not
called to EAD one month later and he cites no  authority  for  such  a
proposition.  The superseded directives in effect prior to 1994-96 did
not govern his situation.  A change in rules evidenced by a change  to
governing regulations does not create an injustice for  those  persons
whose dates are calculated  under  the  newer  (current)  rules.   All
applicable instructions were followed and the applicant  received  the
correct CGDOR.  He provides no specific facts about the  case  alluded
to or how its resolution would (or should) control the outcome in  his
circumstances.  Each BCMR application is unique and limited to its own
facts; the referenced case does not  create  a  precedent  that  would
control this or any other application.

A complete copy of the HQ AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the evaluations were forwarded to the applicant  on
23 Jun 06 (Exhibit F) for review and comment within 30  days.   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 awarding the  applicant
100% credit for time spent in the EDP, thereby changing his  DORs  for
1LT and 2LT  as  well  as  his  promotion  eligibility  to  major.  We
considered the contentions presented by  the  applicant  and  the  Air
Force, and reviewed the approved AFBCMR case the  applicant  cited  as
similar to his.  We  found  the  arguments  presented  by  HQ  AFPC/JA
cogent, particularly with respect to superseded directives  in  effect
prior to 1994-96 did not govern the applicant’s situation,  his  CGDOR
was correctly determined by instructions which  were  applicable,  and
each application is unique and must be considered on its  own  merits.
In this last respect, we note a  difference  between  the  applicant’s
case and Captain P--’s.  In the cited  case,  the  Board  acknowledged
current policy had been correctly applied also but concluded Captain P-
- had been unfairly penalized for having completed his degree while in
the EDP in 20 rather 24 months.  The Board  determined  Captain  P--’s
accelerated  achievement  had  an  unintended  consequence  warranting
correction in the interests of justice.  In  this  case,  however,  we
note the applicant opted out of the EDP before he attained his degree.
 He has not established to our  satisfaction  that  he  has  been  the
victim of an  error  or  injustice.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this appeal.

_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 22 August 2006 under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Robert H. Altman, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
                 Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket  No.  BC-
2006-01381 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Apr 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAOR, dated 5 Jun 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 8 Jun 06.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 15 Jun 06.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jun 06.




                                   ROBERT H. ALTMAN
                                   Panel Chair