RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01976
				INDEX CODE:  110.00

	APPLICANT	COUNSEL:  None

	SSN		HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated to the grade of E-6, with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 March 2000 and back pay from 3 October 2000.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was demoted to the grade of E-5, loss of all date of rank, ineligible for promotion testing and loss of pay due to old regulations and directives set forth prior to the acceptance policies for recruiting experienced prior service enlisted members during critical shortages.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant  served on  active  duty between 9 January 1986 to 6 January 1994 and was honorably discharged in the grade of staff sergeant after serving 7 years, 11 months and 27 days.  

The applicant was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve on 2 October 2000 in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6).  He enlisted into the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 3 October 2000 in the grade of an E-5.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPAE states AFI 36-2002, Regular Air Force and Special Category Accessions, is the governing directive for determining enlistment grades.  The directive states to enlist in the RegAF as an E-6 an individual have must 10 years of Total Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS).  The applicant’s enlistment grade was determined in accordance with the governing directives.  The applicant was enlisted at the appropriate grade of E-5.  He was not enlisted at the grade of E-6, because he did not have the required 10 years TAFMS.  They find no evidence the applicant was mislead when he enlisted into the RegAF.  Based on the rationale provided, DPPAE recommends the applicant's request be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states he is not requesting the grade of E-6 based solely on his vast training, experience and certifications.  He was misled by the Air Force Recruiting Services personnel and was not informed of the effects of losing three years of time in grade as an E-5, 21 points toward promotion testing for E-6 and that he would not be able to test for promotion for until spring 2003.  In support of his request he has provided character references and certification of his training (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE states the applicant, at the time of his reenlistment, had 8 years and 28 days of TAFMS.  The applicant needed 10 years of TAFMS to enlist in the RegAF as an E-6.  Former members of a regular component enlisting on or after their 6th anniversary of their DOS will have their DOR equal to the date of enlistment in the RegAF.  The applicant had been separated from a regular component for 6 years, 8 months and 26 days.  The applicant was beyond the timeframe for a DOR adjustment.  DPPAE further states the applicant’s enlistment grade and DOR were reviewed and determined correct in accordance with governing directives.  The applicant was enlisted in the proper grade and DOR.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and again states that he is not requesting to be returned to the grade of E-6 based on his training and certifications.  He has been deceived and has suffered several injustices.  He was told he would be enlisted as an E-5 for four years and receive a new DOR and if he had any arguments they could be dealt with at the gaining MPF.  AFPC keeps stating over and over again the regulations, but they fail to recognize that the Air Force Recruiting Command failed to counsel him about the losses he would suffer by enlisting as an E-5. 

HQ AFPC has paid him as an E-5 with 10 years of service since 3 October 2000, just like he had 10 years of TAFMS.  Ten years of service is the reason he cannot hold the rank of E-6.  AFPC states he can’t hold the rank of E-6, but he receives pay for a 10 year active duty E-5 member.  He is now receiving pay as a 12 year active duty veteran.

He further states that many prior service members come back in before the 4 year time in grade (TIG) rule, included in AFI 36-2604.  As the break in service increases, the awarded TIG decreases.  This is definitely a punishment.  This was implemented due to the statistics of enlisted personnel discharged who did not keep up their proficiency (skill level) and managerial skills in an equivalent career field in the civilian climate.  He has held the same skill level (7) and beyond in the same field as a civilian and an NCOIC in the AF Reserves.

He is sure General Jumper would not approve of this injustice he was served.  It is a monumental task these days to get skilled middle management in any atmosphere.  Everyone he has encountered can’t believe the injustices he has suffered.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  The applicant contends that he was miscounseled by the Recruiting Service and he should have been able to enlist in the RegAF as an E-6.  However, it appears that in order for the applicant to be enlisted in the RegAF as an E-6, he needed ten years of total active military federal service (TAFMS).  The applicant did not have the required time to enlist as an E-6, however; he apparently met the criteria to enlist as an E-5.  Furthermore, the applicant signed and initialed the Enlistment Agreement - Prior Service (AF Form 3006), which stated he was enlisting as an E-5 and that he had no claim to a higher grade and that his entitlement to promotions would be based on the regulations in effect at the of his enlistment and that no provisions are available to accelerate promotions due to prior service or number of years.  The enlistment agreement further stated the applicant’s DOR would be the date of his enlistment in the RegAF.  Therefore, in view of the foregoing and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting 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 02-01976 in Executive Session on 25 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 6 Jun 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Microfiche.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 3 Sep 02.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Oct 02.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 25 Oct 02,
			w/atchs.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 30 Jan 03.
	Exhibit G.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Feb 03.
	Exhibit H.	Applicant’s Response, dated 11 Feb 03.

				
				Panel Chair