RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03244 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her original date of rank (DOR) to second lieutenant (2Lt) (O-1) be changed to 14 February 2003. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She does not agree with how her DOR was computed. Her effective date of duty was 28 February 2003, not 4 March 2003, which was her report-not-later-than (RNLT) date. She executed her orders as instructed on 28 February 2003 and was present for duty prior to 4 March 2003. Her classmate’s record, who was commissioned with her, shows 14 February 2003 as his original DOR. Her DOR should be identical to his. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of her Extended Active Duty (EAD) Order and her Statement of Service. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of captain (O-3) with a DOR of 16 February 2007. The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s military service records, are contained in the evaluation by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIPV recommends denial. DPSIPV states that during an audit of records in the 2003 year group of officers to meet the major promotion board, it was discovered the applicant’s original DOR to 2Lt was incorrect. It should have been 17 February 2003 rather than 16 February 2003 and was corrected accordingly. The applicant was notified at the time of the correction. The error in her DOR occurred due to her EAD date being recorded as 28 February 2003 rather than 1 March 2003 causing her original DOR to be 16 February 2003, which gave her one day too much credit. The EAD was corrected and established as 1 March 2003. The Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation, Volume 7A, Chapter 1, paragraph 010201C, indicates “Commencement of travel in compliance with an order is considered acceptance for pay purposes” establishing the EAD. The member must be in a pay status to be on active duty. The effective date of duty on the applicant’s order was on or after 28 February 2003. She chose to start travel on 1 March 2003, not using her full amount of authorized travel time. The DOR is computed in accordance with Air Force Instruction 36- 2604, Service Dates and Dates of Rank. Reserve officers receive 50 percent credit for the period of time between the commissioning date and EAD by determining the number of days of service as a Reserve officer then dividing by two (50 percent) and subtract from the EAD. In the applicant’s case, the number of days between 31 January 2003 and 28 February 2003 equals 28 days, 50 percent equals 14 days subtracted from her EAD of 1 March 2003, resulting in 17 February 2003. The 14 days cannot be subtracted from 28 February 2003 because that is the last day of Reserve service used to determine the 28/14 days and 1 March 2003 was her first day of active duty (EAD). DPSIPV indicates that if the Board’s decision is to grant relief, then the applicant’s DOR to 2Lt should be returned to the original date 16 February 2003. The complete DPSIPV 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 21 October 2011 for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 an error or an 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 its rationale 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. _________________________________________________________________ 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-2011-03244 in Executive Session on 5 April 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-03244 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Aug 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIPV, dated 21 Sep 11, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Oct 11.