RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01186
		INDEX CODE:  102.07
		COUNSEL:  NONE	

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of rank (DOR) be adjusted to reflect constructive service credit (CSC) for 39 months versus 24 months.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He and another recruit from the same program were told that they would be given 39 months CSC toward their DOR.  

In support of his request applicant provided a copy of memorandums from the Prior Officer Accessions Recruiter, AF Health Professions and the Medical Accessions Program Manager, a copy of Reserve Order JA-02181, and a copy of AFITI 36-101, page 16.  

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the Personnel Data System reflects that on   2 July 2002, applicant was appointed a first lieutenant with a DOR of 24 June 2002.  In a Constructive Service Credit Computation, the applicant was granted 2 years of credit for his Master of Science degree.  He is currently assigned in Atlanta, Georgia as a Health Facilities Officer.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPAMF2 recommends denial.  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 (see note 4).  Note 4 reads: “Depending on the official length of the program, award applicant 12-24 months credit for a master’s degree.  Further, AFI 36-2005, paragraph 8.2, states the minimum education requirement; “is a baccalaureate degree in engineering, architecture or architectural engineering…”  

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.  AETC Form 1431’s are not used for FAP students therefore applicant would not have had one on file.

The DPAMF2 evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAO recommends denial.  The Medical Service Officer Management Division recommends denial of his case.  However, if the Board approves his request, his date of rank would change from 2 July 2002 to 2 April 2001.

The DPPAOR evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 10 Jun 03, for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 

_________________________________________________________________

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.  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.  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 Docket Number BC-2003-01186 in Executive Session on 19 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Mar 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAMF2, dated 14 May 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAOR, dated 6 May 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 03.