RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01680
		INDEX CODE:  

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of rank (DOR) to the grade of captain (0-3) be changed to either 5 June 1999 or the date of his original appointment as a Dental Corps officer.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The computation of his original DOR was not done in accordance with current DoD policy relating to the accession of Dental Corps officers in the Reserve of the Air Force.  He was awarded four years, ten months, and twenty-nine days of constructive service credit (CSC) in accordance with (IAW) Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2005, CSC for Dental Corps Accessions.  Under said AFI he could have been appointed as a captain, versus a first lieutenant.  He was promoted to captain on 7 Mar 01 following the identification of a superseding policy that had been overlooked.  His grade increased but his DOR was not changed retroactively to reflect his original accession date.  

IAW Title 10, U.S.C., Section 12207(b)(2) and DoD Instruction (DODI) 6000.13, section 6.2.4 (30 Jun 97), entry grade was to be awarded to dentists in the same manner as physicians in response to a critical shortage of dental corps officers.  A memorandum from the Under Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) outlining and enforcing this policy was transmitted in Jan 2001.  He was promoted to captain shortly after.  He believes his original appointment should have been as a captain that would have allowed him to reach the date of eligibility for position vacancy (PV) to major after four years of service (5 Jun 03).  His current record indicates (in error) that his PV eligibility to major will be 7 Mar 05, which happens to be four years from the date that the error in service credit calculation was identified.  This problem places him behind in the normal promotion cycle by two years, as if his promotion to captain had never happened.  He believes the award of service time and CSC was arbitrary and random and not in compliance with DoD policy and directives.  He wishes his service record be corrected to reflect that his DOR to captain was 5 Jun 99, or the date of his original appointment.

In support of his appeal, applicant has provided a personal statement, copies of Report on Individual Personnel (RIP) from the personnel data system, a memo from SecAF to USAF granting authority for services to appoint in the grade of captain, for Reserve Component Dentists, an excerpt from AFI 36-2005, Chapter 2, Determining Service Credit, and DoDI 6000.13. 

His appeal, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was approved for appointment on 27 April 1999, and appointed effective 5 Jun 1999.  He was awarded two years, ten months and twenty-nine days of CSC the amount of which enabled him to be appointed as a first lieutenant.  In a 19 Jan 01 memo, entitled Authority for Services to Entry-Grade of Captain for Reserve Component Dentists,” USAF changed the entry-grade requirements allowing accessions to be appointed as captains.  

He was promoted to the grade of captain effective and with a DOR of 11 Apr 01.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPPI recommends denial.  DPPI states that the applicant was appointed IAW AFI 36-2005, Table 2.1 that states “…applicants with at least two years, but less than seven years of service credit are eligible for appointment in the grade of first lieutenant.”  As such, applicant was appointed as a first lieutenant on 5 Jun 99.  The subject policy memorandum giving the services the authority to appoint in the higher grade of captain was dated 19 Jan 01 and was effectively immediately at that time.  The ANG began appointing dentists in the initial grade of captain.  The subject memorandum became effective one year and seven months after the applicant was appointed and therefore does not apply.

ANG/DPPI’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant offers the following observations, regarding the ANG/DPPI advisory, in an attempt to help clarify any misunderstandings.  The subject memorandum authorizing the services the authority to grant CSC in such an amount as shall result in the grade of such person being captain was completed largely due to his own efforts, through correspondence with the OSD.  Lobbying through the Reserve Officers Association led to the re-evaluation of the status of himself and others in the same situation, in an attempt to correct any recruitment and retention issues relating to unequal treatment of Reserve versus active duty dental officers.  He was promoted to captain effective 7 Mar 01, without having met a board and in advance of what would have been his normal promotion cycle.  He believes the promotion was due to the subject policy memo but he has no idea how the promotion date was arrived at.  He questions the reasoning behind choosing the 7 Mar 01 date for promotion as it seems completely unrelated to his service history, time in grade (TIG) and training.  He suspects this was an arbitrary assignment of a date corresponding to the timeframe necessary to do the necessary paperwork to increase his rank and send it through proper channels (in response to the policy memo) and, he believes this to be unjust.  

He believes it obvious (regarding being promoted out of cycle and so soon after the policy memo became effective), that a policy error was identified and someone was attempting to correct it by taking specific promotion action at that time.  The policy memo clearly states, “This provision is in effect due to the continued critical shortage of qualified dental officers to fill authorized active status Reserve component dentist positions in the grade below 04.”  He questions why, after the admission of the shortage of dental officers at the time of his original appointment, the policy was not being enforced at his appointment.  He suspects the policy was, indeed, in effect, but not being followed by the Air Force for reasons not yet understood.

As is his original contention, his rank increased, but his DOR has not been backdated to reflect his original appointment date.  Until this is done, he will continue to endure the humiliation of seeing Dental Corps officers with less experience and military service promoted over him.  He notes that this, and all the other correspondence generated by this issue, will be forwarded to his elected representative, Senator Larry Craig (R - ID).

The applicant’s complete rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The memorandum from the Under Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of the Air Force, dated 1 January 2001, implementing the policy of appointing 0-3 (Captain) entry-level grades for Reserve component dentists was effective 1 January 2001 and there were no grandfather provisions to include those appointed at an earlier date.  The applicant was appointed a 1st Lieutenant in the ANG on 5 June 1999, one year and seven months prior to the effective date of the memorandum.  With respect to the applicant's out of cycle promotion, the evidence of record shows he was eligible for promotion to captain, by virtue of his CSC, immediately on appointment in the ANG on 5 June 1999.  However, ANG policy requires appointees to serve for one year, have one Officer Performance Report (OPR), and one good year of service (50 points), prior to any promotion consideration.  Consequently, he was eligible for promotion to captain on 5 June 2000.  However, a delay or oversight in his recommendation for promotion to captain resulted in a later promotion date of 11 April 2001.  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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01680 in Executive Session on 29 October 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 May 03, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 22 Aug 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Sep 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Sep 03, w/atchs.

                                   Vice Chair