RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2008-01378
INDEX CODE: 112.10
XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:	NO
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1.	His date of rank (DOR) be adjusted based on his grade and DOR in the Reserves.

2.	He receive supplemental promotion consideration.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2002, Regular Air Force and Special Category Accessions, paragraph A4.2.5, DORs are determined for prior service applicants per AFI 36-2604, Service Dates and Dates of Rank. When he returned to active duty (AD), his DOR to staff sergeant (SSgt) was 2 June 2004. Prior to his enlistment he was activated in support of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). He voluntarily enlisted on AD the day after his release from mobilization and his DOR was never adjusted. IAW AFI 36-2604, his DOR should have remained the same or been recalculated since he had been serving on AD and was discharged with immediate enlistment to extended active duty (EAD). IAW AFI 36-2604, Chapter 9, Determining DOR of Reserve Airman Ordered to or Released from EAD, paragraph 9.1, the active duty DOR is the same as the Reserve DOR. Paragraph 8.3 states "Reserve members serving on EAD, with the RegAF who are discharged from an Air Reserve Component (ARC) for immediate reenlistment in the RegAF, adjust DOR and credit time served on current EAD, provided they meet the total active federal military service (TAFMS) criteria for the grade in which they are serving."

Due to the DOR discrepancy, he was not authorized testing during the 2005 promotion cycle. During the 2006 promotion cycle, he missed promotion by approximately 10 points. Had his DOR been correct he would have been promoted to technical sergeant during the 2006 promotion cycle and now eligible for the master sergeant promotion cycle because his DOR would have been in the 2005-2006 timeframe.

In support of his request, applicant submits a personal statement, copies of Special Order 4154006 and his statement of service.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted on AD in the US Army on 15 January 1992.
Effective 6 May 1994, he was separated from the Army in the grade of E-3. On 7 May 1994, he entered the Army National Guard (ARNG).

On 9 January 2001, he was separated from the ARNG. On 5 February 2001, he entered the Air Force Reserves (AFR) in the grade of SSgt with a DOR of 5 February 2001. On 1 June 2004, he was separated from the AFR. On 2 June 2004, he joined the Regular Air Force (RegAF) in the grade of SSgt with a DOR equal to his date of enlistment (DOE).

On 9 April 2008, the applicant submitted his initial application requesting an adjustment to his DOR. On 28 May 2008, HQ AFPC/DPSOA sent the applicant a memorandum stating if his enlistment grade was not held in a regular component, the DOR would be equal to his DOE. Since he was promoted to the rank of SSgt in the Reserves and not in a regular component, DPSOA found no justification or authorization to adjust his DOR. DPSOA further advised the applicant to return the DD Form 149 if he believed an error or injustice exists. On 23 February 2009, the applicant submitted another DD Form 149.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states AFI 36-2604, paragraph 8.1, list several categories that require members to receive a DOR equal to the DOE in the RegAF. The following categories apply to the applicant: former members of a regular component enlisting on or after their sixth anniversary of their date of separation (DOS) and Reservist who enlisted in a pay grade higher than the last grade held in a regular component. The applicant is pointing to AFI 36-2604, paragraphs 9.1 and 8.3 to support his request. DPSOA states any references to Chapter 9 apply to Reservist only. The applicant separated from the Reserves on 1 June 2004 and entered the RegAF on 2 June 2004. Therefore, Chapter 8, Determining DOR of Airman on Enlistment in the Regular Air Force applies to the applicant. He also references paragraph 8.3, "Reserve members serving on EAD with the RegAF, who are discharged from an ARC for immediate reenlistment in the RegAF keep the same DOR they held on discharge, provided they meet the TAFMS criteria for the grade in which they are serving." However, he was not on orders with the RegAF, but was on active duty under Title 10 with the Reserves. Specifically, paragraph 8.1 (receives a DOR equal to the DOE in the RegAF) applies to the applicant based on him being a former

member of a regular component enlisting after his sixth anniversary of his DOS and being a Reservist who enlisted in a higher pay grade than the last grade held in a regular component. Either one of those two categories would require the applicant's DOR to be equal to his DOE in the RegAF.

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit B.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8 May 2009 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit C).

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 an error or injustice. After a thorough review of the available evidence and the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence which would persuade us that his DOR should be adjusted based on his grade and DOR in the Reserves or that his service records should be corrected to show he was promoted to any grade higher than that reflected in his military records. We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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 the application.

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC- 2008-01378 in Executive Session on 25 June 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 23 February 2009, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOA, dated 22 April 2009.
Exhibit C.	Letter SAF/MRBR, dated 8 May 2009.