RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01635
		INDEX NUMBER:  135.01
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her grade of master sergeant (MSgt) held in the Air Force Reserve be reinstated retroactive to the date she entered active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She fell short of the 15 years of active service required to retain her grade of MSgt due to her voluntary decision to demobilize.  When she came on active duty, she was 29 days short of the days needed.  She also encountered numerous difficulties getting her records and military pay straight.  She provides details of the difficulties she has encountered.

The applicant provides a summary of her record of performance in the Reserve as a MSgt and of the level of responsibility she has since returning to active duty.  The applicant provides a letter of support from a senior officer in her unit.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted and entered active duty in the Regular Air Force on 7 May 03 in the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-6) with 14 years, 7 months, and 27 days of prior active duty.  She transferred from the Air Force Reserve where she had held the rank of MSgt since 1 Jan 02.  She is presently serving on active duty in the grade of TSgt.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The applicant’s enlistment grade was determined in accordance with governing directives and in a fair and equitable manner.  The applicant was clearly aware of the grade that she was enlisting in.  To enlist in pay grade E-7 requires 15 years of Total Active Federal Military Service.  The applicant had 14 years, 7 months, and 27 days of active duty service.  AFPC/DPPAE attaches a letter from the Chief, Enlisted Accessions, Air Force Recruiting Service, detailing the events surrounding the applicant’s enlistment and return to active duty.  They point out that the applicant would not have been able to come on active duty in her Air Force Specialty in the grade of master sergeant because the Air Force is overmanned in it.  The only reason the applicant was granted an exception to policy was because she was a technical sergeant.  

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 16 Jul 04 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.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2004-01635 in Executive Session on 17 August 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Jul 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 13 Jul 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Jul 04.