RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03963
		INDEX NUMBER:  135.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) (E-5) with a date of rank (DOR) of 13 Nov 00 that he earned in the Air National Guard be established as the grade in which he was ordered to active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

It took more than four years for him to be ordered to active duty after he was disenrolled from the Air Force Academy, although the normal length of time is 30 days.  He was enlisted in the Air National Guard during this four-year period, where he was promoted to the grade of SSgt.  If he had been ordered to active duty within the normal 30 days, it would have been in the grade of   E-4.  However, Air Force Instruction 36-2020 provides an exception for a cadet to be awarded a higher grade when ordered to active duty if the cadet had earned a higher grade for service prior to the Academy.  He does not believe it makes sense that he could keep the higher grade if his service were prior, but lose it since he enlisted after leaving the academy, when he had no break in service going from the Air National Guard to the Air Force Reserve.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides extracts from applicable Air Force Instructions, a copy of his separation orders from the Air National Guard, and a copy of his extended active duty (EAD) orders.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of senior airman (SrA) (E-4) after being involuntarily called to active duty to fulfill a 36-month Military Service Obligation due to his disenrollment from the Air Force Academy.  Originally, when he was disenrolled from the Academy, the applicant was ordered to reimburse the Government in lieu of serving on active duty.  As a result of a case previously considered by the AFBCMR, the applicant was granted the option to serve on active duty to fulfill his commitment (Exhibit B).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAEQ recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  At the time the applicant enlisted in the Air National Guard (ANG), he was already serving on a Military Service Obligation with the Reserves, thereby making his contract with the ANG erroneous.  When the applicant was involuntarily called to duty, AFI 36-2020 directed his pay grade to be established as E-4.  His enlistment with the ANG was after his enlistment with the Air Force Academy; therefore no credit was given for time served.  They also illustrate that even if the applicant’s enlistment had been voluntary, based on his Total Active Federal Military Service, his grade would have still been E-4.

The applicant’s enlistment grade is consistent with governing Air Force directives.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 2 May 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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 opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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 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 Docket Number BC-2002-03963 in Executive Session on 2 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Dec 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAEQ, dated 28 Apr 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 03.