RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02534
            INDEX NUMBER:  115.01  121.03
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Aviation Service Date (ASD) of 2 October 1997 he was  given  after
transferring from the Navy to the Air Force be changed  to    21  July
1997, the date he had before the transfer.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His ASD does not comply with the  governing  instruction  AFI  11-420,
Aviation and Parachutist Service, Aeronautical Ratings, and Badges.

In support of his application, applicant provided a personal letter, a
copy of his Naval  Aviator  Aviation  Training  Jacket  Summary  Card,
Bureau of Naval Personnel (BUPERS) Orders  #0627,  Aviation  Preflight
Indoctrination (API) Syllabus, Description of the Joint Primary  Pilot
Training (JPPT) Phase I training and emails.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Based the applicant’s BUPERS, he was commissioned as an ensign in  the
US Navy on 23 May 1997. On 27  June  1997,  he  began  Naval  Aviation
Preflight Indoctrination. On 1 October  1997,  the  applicant  entered
Primary Phase of  Undergraduate  Pilot  Training.  The  applicant  was
honorably separated from the Navy on           18  December  2005  and
transferred to the Air Force Air Reserves on 19 December 2005.  He  is
presently serving on extended active duty in  the  Air  Force  in  the
grade of major. He was awarded the Air Force pilot aeronautical rating
effective  19  December  2005.  The  applicant’s   initial   ASD   was
established as 1 October 1997, based upon the start date of the  Naval
Primary Phase of Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT)

_________________________________________________________________



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAF/A3O-AT recommends denial  and  states  the  applicant’s  ASD  was
established correctly in accordance with (IAW) applicable Navy and Air
Force instructions. The applicant’s initial ASD was determined to be 1
October 1997 based upon the beginning of the primary phase of  UPT  as
documented on his Naval Aviator Training Jacket Summary Card. The  API
syllabus provided in the applicant’s request indicates the course does
not include flying training and therefore would not establish his ASD.


The US Navy BUPERS Instruction 7220.29A dated 17 June 2002, states the
ASD is the date an officer reports to  the  aviation  facility  having
aircraft in which the officer will receive flight training leading  to
the award of an aeronautical designation. The aviation facility having
aircraft is further defined to denote custodianship and applies to the
training squadron where the officer commences flight training.

USAF/A3O-AT’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviews the Air Force evaluation and states  it  is  not
surprising that the office of primary responsibility (OPR)  recommends
denial of his request; this is the same office that denied his request
initially, and caused him to seek relief through  the  AFBCMR.  Please
note the AFI cited in his initial request, AFI 11-401, has an  OPR  of
USAF/XOOT. That office has been renamed, and is  now  USAF/A3OAT.  The
OPR that wrote the advisory opinion recommending denial of his request
is the same OPR for  the  AFI  referenced  in  his  request.  This  is
appropriate, but he brings it  up  to  make  an  important  point:  He
justified his request based on AFI written by the  OPR,  but  the  OPR
recommends denial of his request without any mention of the  governing
instruction which they authored. Nothing could better  illustrate  the
difficulties he has had attempting to have his ASD corrected. The lack
of compliance with the governing instruction is why he has been forced
to seek help from the BCMR. The advisory opinion makes a good argument
for establishing an ASED for the Navy. He is no longer in the Navy. He
is in the Air Force, and he would like a  correct  ASD  based  on  the
governing instruction, AFI 11-402.

The applicant provides extracts from  pertinent  Air  Force  and  Navy
Instructions that he believes supports his entitlement to  change  his
ASD date and his entrance into the  Aviation  Continuation  Pay  bonus
program effective 27 June 1997.

Applicant’s complete response 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of an  error  or  injustice  regarding  the  applicant’s
request to change his Aviation Service Date.  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 its rationale as the  basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  In this respect, we note that the applicant’s ASD
start date in the Air Force was established correctly based  upon  the
applicant’s assignment to an  Aviation  Facility  having  aircraft  to
commence flight training while in the Navy.  It would be improper  for
the Air Force to knowingly award the  applicant  an  Aviation  Service
Date not computed according to the rules and  regulations  that  would
apply in any other similar case.   Therefore,  we  find  no  basis  to
recommend granting the requested relief.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did   not
demonstrate the existence of a 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-
2007-02534 in  Executive  Session  on  29  November  2007,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
    Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member











The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2007-02534 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Aug 07, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, USAF/A3O-AT, dated 24 Sep 07.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Oct 07.
   Exhibit E.  Applicant's Response, dated 6 Oct 07, w/atchs.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair