RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00603
		INDEX CODE:  

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of rank (DOR) to first lieutenant be adjusted from 4 July 2002 to 4 April 2001.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told that his graduate degree would count towards his DOR day-for-day.  His degree was officially 3 years and 3 months - he was given 2 years of credit.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of a revised note to the administrative officer, explaining the description of the history and problems with his DOR calculation, a copy of his list of contacts, a memorandum from the Initial Officer Accessions Recruiter and the Officer Accessions Recruiter, verifying Day-for-Day credit, a memorandum verifying the Official Length of the Degree, a copy of his Reserve orders indicating his grade as a captain, and an excerpt of AFITI 36-101, Page 16, paragraph 6.3.1, indicating that Financial Assistance Program (FAP) students will get the base pay of a captain.  Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates that on 22 July 2002, the applicant was ordered to extended active duty in the grade of first lieutenant, with a date of rank of 4 July 2002.  In a Constructive Service Credit Computation completed on 15 July 2002, the applicant was granted 2 years of credit for his Master of Science degree and 1 month of credit his prior inactive Reserve service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAMF2 states that the applicant completed his Master’s Degree in Architecture and was sponsored through the Air Force FAP.  The applicant states his recruiter told him that he would receive day-for-day credit while completing his master’s degree and would enter active duty (AD) at the rank of captain (0-3).  He later received his extended active duty (EAD) orders appointing him in the grade of first lieutenant (0-2) as opposed to captain.  He contacted AFPC/DPAMW and was informed that he did not have an AETC Form 1431, Medical Service Grade and Pay Computation Worksheet (estimated) on file in his records.  The applicant’s EAD, Total Active Federal Commissioned Service and Total Active Federal Military Service dates are 22 July 2002.

DPAMF2 indicates that AFI 36-2005, Appointment in Commissioned Grades and Designation and Assignment in Professional Categories-Reserve of the AF and USAF, table 2.5, rule #8, outlines the procedures to award MS degree, “completed a Master of Science degree in engineering or industrial hygiene, then the amount of award is 12 to 24 months.  Note 4 reads:  “Depending on the official length of the program, award the applicant 12-24 months credit for a master’s degree.  Furthermore, AFI 36-2005, para 8.2, states the minimum education requirement is a baccalaureate degree in engineering, architecture and architectural engineering.

According to DPAMF2, the applicant was misinformed by his recruiter regarding his rank upon entry into the Air Force, however, he was awarded appropriate credit in accordance with AFI 36-2005.  The AETC Forms 1431 are not used for FAP students therefore the applicant would not have had one on file.  Therefore, they recommend disapproval of applicant’s request.

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

AFPC/DPPAOR states that the Medical Service Officer Management Division recommended denial of the case.  However, if the Board determines his case should be approved, his DOR would change from 4 July 2002 to 4 April 2001.  A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 18 April 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response 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.  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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The Air Force states that the applicant was misinformed by his recruiter regarding his rank upon entry into the Air Force; however, he was awarded appropriate credit in accordance with AFI 36-2005.  It is also noted that the applicant completed his Master’s Degree in Architecture and was sponsored through the Air Force Financial Assistance Program (FAP).  The AETC Forms 1431 are not used for FAP students; therefore, it was not on file in his records.  While it may be that the applicant was miscounseled concerning his entry grade, his grade was correct at the time of his entrance on active duty, he knew that he was entering as a first lieutenant, and he entered active duty under those conditions.  More importantly, we have seen no evidence by the applicant that would lead us to believe that he was treated differently from other similarly situated members or that the computation of his service credit was contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction.  Therefore, 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 this application in Executive Session on 11 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered with Docket Number BC-2003-00603:

	Exhibit A.	 DD Form 149, dated 18 Feb 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	 Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPAMF2, dated 19 Mar 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.	 Letter, AFPC/DPPAOR, dated 11 Apr 03.
	Exhibit E.	 Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Apr 03.

					
					Panel Chair