RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  02-02825
		INDEX CODE 129.01  131.05
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His time in grade (TIG) as an E5 be corrected to reflect all of his TIG from prior service in the US Navy and his date of rank (DOR) as an Air Force E5 be changed from 7 Mar 00 to 25 Jul 99.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 7 Jan 02, AFI 36-2604 was changed to let prior service members retain all TIG if separated less than four years. This change was not grandfathered to prior service members that returned to active duty prior to the date of publication of the change.  He lost 50% of his TIG and was only out for 35 days. He believes this change is discriminatory because it puts prior service members entering after the change in a clear advantage for promotion testing. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the US Navy from 12 Jan 93 and was promoted to E5 with a DOR of 16 Dec 98. He was discharged from the Navy on 18 Mar 01 in the grade of E5.  He subsequently enlisted in the Air Force on 24 Apr 01 and his DOR as an E5 was established as 7 Mar 00.  
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPAO advises the applicant returned to active duty with 1 month, 4 days adjusted date of separation in the grade of E5. He received 50% TIG of E5 in accordance with AFI 36-2604, 1 Jul 99, which awarded members 50% of TIG. The applicant’s adjusted date of separation was less than two years; therefore, he received 50% of TIG of E5 and his DOR was established as 7 Mar 00.  Effective 18 Dec 01, AFI 36-2604 was changed so that prior service enlisted members returning to active duty in the same grade before the fourth anniversary of the adjusted rate of separation would receive 100% of TIG. The change was not grandfathered and was effective on date of publication. HQ AFPC/DPPAO asserts that, based on governing directives, the applicant’s DOR was computed correctly and the appeal should be denied. However, if relief is granted, his DOR should be adjusted to 25 Jul 99.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 Dec 02 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 changing the applicant’s TIG and DOR. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. The applicant’s belief that his circumstances are unfair is understandable, and we do not dispute that rule changes can, and often do, have a tremendous impact on any given individual. Nevertheless, this is a fact of life. Policy effective dates are utilized and instrumental in many processes, and no system is or will be perfectly fair to everyone. Policies and regulations often change, and while that may seem unfair, it is not inherently unjust. In this case, the applicant has not established that his TIG and DOR were incorrectly computed or that he was treated any differently than others affected by the governing directive in existence at the time. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.   

_________________________________________________________________

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 20 March 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02825 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Aug 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAO, undated, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Dec 02.