MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
			       CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Case on APPLICANT, AFBCMR 01-00232

	I have carefully reviewed the circumstances of this case and do not agree with the opinion of the majority of the panel that applicant’s request to have his time in grade or date of rank (DOR) to the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt) adjusted to include his previous time in grade as a TSgt, from 1 Jul 86 - 6 Sep 94, while in the Air Force Reserve, should be denied.

	After considering the evidence available for my review, I agree with the minority member of the panel that the applicant’s request should be granted.  In this regard, it appears that the applicant’s date of rank to the grade of technical sergeant was properly computed in accordance with the governing regulation and current policy.  Because he had a break in service of more than 90 days, he did not receive credit for his service as a technical sergeant during the period 1 July 1986 - 6 September 1994.

	I have reviewed the applicant’s statement wherein he stated that he started his application to rejoin the Air Force Reserve, in August 1997, prior to separating from the Army, so that he would not have a break in service.  Unfortunately, the process was not completed until well past 90 days after his separation.  Having no reason to question the facts as stated by the applicant, I believe that he made an attempt to preclude having a break in service before rejoining the Air Force Reserve and that any doubt should be resolved in his favor.  In addition, I note that he did serve honorably in the Air Force Reserve for over eight years as a technical sergeant and, today, continues to provide a valuable service to the Air Force Reserve.  In view of the foregoing, I believe it would be an injustice to deny him credit for his previous service in the grade of technical sergeant.  I, therefore, find that the applicant’s records should be corrected to reflect a DOR to TSgt of 26 Oct 91 reflecting credit for the period 1 Jul 86 - 6 Sep 94.

							
							Director
							Air Force Review Boards Agency

AFBCMR 01-00232

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that his date of rank to the Reserve grade of Technical Sergeant is 26 October 1991.

		
		Director
		Air Force Review Boards Agency

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00232
		INDEX NUMBER:  131.05

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Time-In-Grade (TIG) or his Date of Rank (DOR) to the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt) be adjusted to include his previous time in grade as a TSgt, from 1 Jul 86 - 6 Sep 94, while in the Air Force Reserve.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During his initial enlistment with the Air Force Reserve, he held the rank of TSgt with a DOR of 1 July 1986 and when he separated, he was discharged honorably.

He states that in September 1994, he joined the US Army under their Army Civilian Acquired Skills (ACAS) program.  Everyone entered the program in the grade of corporal (E-4); while in the program he was promoted to the grade of Sergeant (E-5).  He maintained his skill-level and held a position normally reserved for an Army Staff Sergeant (E-6).  Upon his separation from the Army in Sep 97, he was honorably discharged in the grade of Sergeant (E-5).

On 20 May 98, he enlisted in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of SSgt (E-5) because there were no positions in the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt/E-6) available.  Since he was previously qualified in Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 4N071, when a position was available, he applied and was approved to return to AFSC 4N071.  On 1 January 2000, he was promoted to the grade of TSgt/E-6.

He requests the Board consider his explanation and adjust his DOR to include the time he held previously in the grade of TSgt.

Applicant’s complete statement and documentary evidence submitted in support of his appeal are at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The available records reflect applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS) as 9 years, 8 months and 26 days, with over 23 years of satisfactory service towards retirement.

Applicant initially served in the Air Force Reserve from 1 Jul 86 - 6 Sep 94.  His highest grade held was Technical Sergeant (E-6), with a Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 Jul 86.  Subsequent to his service in the Air Force Reserve, he served in the US Army Reserve between 8 Sep 94 - 7 Sep 97.  He was discharged on 7 Sep 97 in the grade of Sergeant (E-5).  

He enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 20 May 98 in the grade of Staff Sergeant (E-5).  He is currently serving in the grade of Technical Sergeant (E-6), with a DOR of 1 January 2000.  He reenlisted on 7 January 2000 for a period of four years.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel Division, HQ AFRC/DPM, reviewed the application and indicated that the applicant contractually accepted a lower graded position with a different component (US Army).  Upon discharge from the Army, he incurred a break in service of greater than 90 days.  IAW AFI 36-2604, Service Dates and Dates of Rank, para. 9.1.1.1., “Do not credit service that airmen performed before a break in service of more than 90-days for regular or reserve members.”  Member has no entitlement to DOR being recomputed based on current policy; therefore, they recommend denial of the application.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In the applicant’s response to the Air Force evaluation, he restated his original contentions and provided more clarification of the process leading up to his reenlistment in the Air Force Reserve.  He believes his 25 years of service has made him a valuable asset at a time when retention is a challenge for the medical skills.  He also provided documentation reflecting some of his accomplishments in the Air Force, a letter of recommendation from a civilian college, and evaluation reports from the Air Force and the US Army.

A complete copy of the applicant’s response, with attachments, 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 probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, a majority of the Board is not persuaded that his DOR for TSgt or his TIG should be changed.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, the majority does not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  The majority found that the evidence of record clearly indicates the applicant accepted a lower graded position when he enlisted in the Air Force Reserve.  The majority of the Board notes that the applicant’s DOR at the time he enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 20 May 1998 was established in accordance with the applicable Air Force instruction and he has been treated no differently than others similarly situated.  Therefore, the majority of the Board agrees with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopts the rationale expressed as the basis for their decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a majority of the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 13 June 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

By majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application.  Mr. Schlunz voted to correct the records but does not wish to submit a minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Jan 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFRC/DPM, dated 23 Mar 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Apr 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 May 01, w/atchs.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair