RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04726 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her United States Marine Corps Reserve (USMCR) grade of E-8 be reinstated. Her USMCR Enlisted Professional Military Education (EPME) credits be recognized by the Air Force Reserve (AFR). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She served in the USMCR from Jun 83 to Jun 97 attaining the grade of E-8 (MSG) and graduated from both the NCO and SNCO Academies. In Oct 07, she joined the Air Force Reserves and thought she was enlisting as an E-6 (TSgt). When she showed up to sign the paper work, she was informed an E-6 vacant billet could not be located; therefore, she would have to enlist as an E-5 (SSgt). Although, she was very disappointed, but figured she was already there and thought it would be rude to walk away. She also felt that she had made E-8 once; she could just make it again. Since then she was told that by law it was against regulations (illegal) to take more than one, not to mention three stripes. With regards to her EPME, after five years of being told her USMCR NCO and SNCO Academy Certificates were valid; she is now being told she will have to complete the Air Force NCO and SNCO Academies to get promoted. She worked very hard during her career in the Marines, both securing her promotions but also completing all levels of EPME. The Air Force is not recognizing her USMCR accomplishment, but rather, belittling and pushing them aside as if they did not matter. If these classes were good enough to get her promoted to E-8 in the USMCR; then she questions why they are not good enough for the AFR. In support of her request, the applicant provided a personal letter for the Board, copies of her military and civilian Resume, USMCR Promotion Warrants to E-6 (SSG), E-7 (GySgt) and E-8 (MSG), copies of her college transcripts, and copies of her NCO Academy, SNCO Academy and War Fighting Skills Certificates. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the United States Marine Corps Reserves on 28 Jun 82 and was honorable discharged on 12 Jul 99. On 16 Oct 07, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve for 6 years in the pay grade of E-5 (SSgt). The applicant’s DD Form 1966, Record of Military Processing - Armed Forces of the United States, Page Section IV, Remarks, is initialed next to the following Voluntary Demotion Statement of Understanding: “I, applicant’s name, understand I am taking a voluntary demotion and am being assigned or enlisted in the lower grade of E-5 with and effective date of 20071016 and a Date of Rank (DOR) of 200504017. I understand that the demotion action will not preclude promotion according to AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, Chapter 4.” She is currently serving in the Air Force Reserves in the pay grade of Technical Sergeant. 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: AFRC/A1K recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. After thoroughly reviewing all of the documents provided by the applicant and her official military personnel records they confirmed she enlisted into the Air Force Reserves in the grade of E-5 (Staff Sergeant) after an eight year break in service. In accordance with AFRCI 36-2001, Air Force Reserve Recruiting, paragraph 6.9., Table 6.2., Note 2, “Enlistment grade may depend on the authorized grade of the position to which the applicant is being enlisted into.” Additionally, AFI 36-2115, Assignment within the Air Force Reserve, paragraph 1.7.7. Voluntary Demotion: “Voluntary demotion may be needed for a member to qualify. However, demotion below the grade of staff sergeant is not required.” It is at the gaining unit Commander’s discretion on accepting prior service member into the unit at a specific grade to ensure members currently assigned are not affected or blocked for career progression. When the applicant entered the Air Force Reserve, the policy for sister service was E-5s who entered before 1 Oct 08 did not have to complete Airman Leadership School and could move forward from that timeframe. In reviewing the applicant’s records it is noted that she attended her Marine PME courses via “Distance Learning” and in accordance with AFI 36-2301, Developmental Education, Chapter 24, paragraph 24.3.2.2., Sister Service Distance Learning (DL) EPME courses are not comparable to AF DL (or resident) EPME courses and thus do not meet the Air Force EPME requirements. Air Force policy states our sister service classes do not meet our EPME requirements. The only exception to his policy is the Senior Non-Commissioned Officer Academy courses; however, to receive credit it must be attended in- residence. A complete copy of the AFRC/A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In response to the Air Force Advisory, the applicant argues that AFRC/A1K failed to address the legality of reducing an enlisted member by three stripes. She would understand if the reduction was a result of legal punishment or disciplinary actions; however, in her case there was no reason what so ever. After seeking guidance from numerous mentors, she contends that it is against Air Force policy and regulations and therefore should not have been permitted. 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, to include her rebuttal comments, in judging the merits of the case; 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. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 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-2014-04726 in Executive Session on 25 Aug 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04726 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Oct 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFRC/A1K, dated 30 Jan 15. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 May 15. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Jun 15.