RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03390

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of rank (DOR) reflect his actual total commissioned service time based on his promotion to the grade of Major (O-4) in the Air Force.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His DOR should be determined in accordance with AFI 36-2005, Appointment in Commissioned Grades and Designation and Assignment in Professional Categories – Reserve of the Air Force and United States Air Force, Table 2.3 (Rule 4), not Table 2.3 (Rule 5).  He met the 2007 Air Force (AF) Line Officer Major’s promotion board and was selected for promotion with a line number of 1717.  On 1 May 08 he transferred to the U.S. Army (Blue-to-Green inter-service transfer program) with no break in service and was promoted to Major on 1 Apr 09, roughly the same time as his AF line number of 1717 would’ve promoted him within the Air Force.  He separated from U.S. Army active duty on 6 Apr 12, and entered the North Carolina Air National Guard (NCANG) on 20 Sep 13, at which time his DOR was determined to be 13 Oct 11, using AFI 36-2005, Table 2.3 (Rule 5).  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 2 Jul 99.

On 30 Apr 08, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 9 years, and 22 days of active service.   

On 1 May 08, the applicant entered the Regular Army.

On 1 Apr 09, according to documentation submitted by the applicant, he was promoted to the grade of Major, effective 1 Apr 09, with a 1 Apr 09 DOR.  

On 6 Apr 12, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge and was credited with 12 years, 11 months, and 28 days of active service.  

On 20 Sep 13, the applicant entered the NCANG.

In accordance with AFI 36-2005, Table 2.3:

a.  Rule 4 – If the individual is a former AF officer who is discharged and accepts appointment in the ResAF in the same competitive category after a break in service, then determine the grade, TYSD, and DOR based on service credit provisions in effect for the Air Force at the time of appointment.  When the determination results in a grade that is higher than the previously held grade, appoint in the grade determined based on service credit.  When the grade determination results in a grade equal to or lower than the previously held grade, appoint the officer in the previously held grade.  Compute the TYSD by backdating the date of the latest appointment by the total amount of service credit awarded according to AFI 36-2604 and this instruction.  Add the break in service to the previously held TFCSD and DOR.  Add periods of inactive status in the previously held grade to the previously held DOR.

	b.  Rule 5 – If the individual is a former officer of another uniformed service who, after discharge, accepts appointment in the ResAF after a break in service, (when appointing as an MC officer, see note 5) determine the grade according to Table 2.1 (see note 2).  Compute the TYSD by back dating the date of appointment by the total amount of service credit awarded according to AFI 36-2604 and this instruction.  Determine the DOR by back dating the date of appointment by the amount of service credit in excess of the service credit that Table 2.1 requires to determine the appointment grade.  Compute the TFCSD by back dating the date of appointment by the total service creditable for TFCSD according to AFI 36-2604. 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1P recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant resigned from the AF as an Interdepartmental Transfer on 30 Apr 08 and transferred to the Army on 1 May 08.  He was discharged from the Army on 6 Apr 12 and joined the NC ANG on 20 Sep 13, incurring a one year, five month, 12 day break in service.  Since the applicant was assigned to the Army before entering the NC ANG, AFI 36-2005, Table 2.3 (Rule 5) was used when computing his service dates for appointment into the ANG.  Rule 5 applies if the individual is a former officer of another uniformed service who, after discharge, accepts appointment in the ResAF after a break in service.  

A complete copy of the NGB/A1P evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPR and argues that his DOR should be computed in accordance with AFI 36-2005, Table 2.3, (Rule 4) as he was a 90 per cent Air Force officer, and arguably greater than 95 per cent AF officer when determining his DOR.  He was a commissioned officer in the AF for over eight years, spent his first seven months in the Army at AF Space Command in Colorado Springs and Command & General Staff College in-residence.  He appeals to the board in fairness and common sense, and to not robotically read AFI 36-2005.  

A complete copy of the Applicant’s response to the Air Force Evaluation 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 an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case, to include his response to the Air Force Evaluation; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  Specifically, we agree with NGB/A1P’s determination that the applicable rules and regulations (AFI 36-2005, Table 2.3, Rule 5) were used when computing the applicant’s service credit for appointment into the North Carolina Air National Guard (NCANG).  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2015-03390 in Executive Session on 21 Jun 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03390 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Aug 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, NGB/A1P, dated 8 Apr 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Apr 16.
	Exhibit E.  Email, Applicant, dated 9 May 16.