RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02781

                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The denial of the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM) for the  period
1 December 1989 to 1 December 1990 be declared void.

2.    The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) rendered for  the  periods  25
May 1991 through 24 May 1992  and  25  May  1992  through  24  May  1993  be
declared void.

3.    The AF Form 2096, Classification/On-the-Job Training Action,  dated  8
January 1992 be voided, and the original AF Form 2096,  dated  13  September
1990 be reinstated.

4.    He be provided supplemental promotion consideration to  the  grade  of
senior master sergeant for all  appropriate  cycles,  beginning  with  cycle
94S8.

5.    He receive the 9-skill level, effective 1 March 1994.

6.    He be provided supplemental promotion consideration to  the  grade  of
chief master sergeant for  all  appropriate  cycles,  beginning  with  cycle
95E9.

7.    The Senior  Enlisted  Performance  Report,  rendered  for  the  period
1 October 1995 through 30 September 1996,  be  declared  void  and  replaced
with the reaccomplished report he has provided.

8.    He be invited to attend Senior NCO Academy at  the  earliest  possible
date; he be reinstated on active duty with no break in service.

9.    The HQ AFPC do a swift, accurate, and thorough reconstruction  of  his
personnel records.

10.   An investigation into the past conduct of Reserve MSgt S---  S.  K---,
by the Office of the Air Force Inspector General be done.

_________________________________________________________________



APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

HQ AFPC failed to swiftly and accurately update  his  personnel  records  in
accordance with the decision of the AFBCMR regarding  AFBCMR  Docket  Number
93-06905, which resulted in unjust promotion consideration  for  all  cycles
commencing with cycle 94S8.

The applicant states that the EPRs, closing 24  May  1992  and  24 May  1993
should be voided since the circumstances of these EPRs  relate  directly  to
AFBCMR  Docket  Number  93-06905.  During  the  contested  periods,  he  was
unjustly kept in a non-supervisory capacity, against his wishes.   The  EPRs
were rendered after his promotion to master sergeant was  unjustly  revoked,
and were written on him as a technical sergeant.   Since  then,  the  AFBCMR
has retroactively reinstated his  master  sergeant  promotion  before  these
EPRs were written.

Applicant's  complete  submission,  with   attachments,   is   attached   at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 13 November 1973.

Due to reaching his High Year of Tenure (HYT) as a  technical  sergeant  (20
years), the applicant was relieved from active  duty  on  30 November  1993,
and retired effective 1 December 1993.  He completed 20 years  and  18  days
of active service.

The applicant submitted a similar appeal of the contested EPRs under AFI 36-
2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which  was  denied
by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB).

On  20  September  1994,  the  AFBCMR  considered  and  granted  applicant’s
requests to void the  EPRs  closing  30  November  1990  and  24  May  1991;
reinstatement  of  his  promotion  to  master  sergeant,  retroactive  to  1
February 1991; reinstatement on  active  duty;  and  supplemental  promotion
consideration to the grade of senior master  sergeant  for  all  appropriate
cycles, beginning with cycle  94S8.   A  complete  copy  of  the  Record  of
Proceedings is attached at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC did not provide the applicant supplemental  promotion  consideration
to the grade of senior master sergeant for cycles 94S8 and 96E8  because  he
needed a board score greater than the maximum of 450.00 to be promoted.

The applicant was  provided  supplemental  promotion  consideration  to  the
grade of senior master  sergeant  for  cycle  95S8  and  95E8  and  was  not
selected.

Due to reaching his HYT as a  master  sergeant  (24  years)  on  30 November
1997, the applicant was relieved from active duty and  retired  effective  1
December 1997, in the grade of master sergeant, in accordance with  AFI  36-
3203 (Voluntary Retirement:  Maximum service or time in grade).   He  served
a total of 24 years and 18 months of active military service.

The applicant’s APR/EPR profile since 1987, reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING                EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

       26 Mar 87                              9
       13 Oct 87                              9
       18 Mar 89                              8
       30 Nov 89                              8
       30 Nov 90                (voided by AFBCMR 93-06905)
       24 May 91                (voided by AFBCMR 93-06905)
     * 24 May 92            3
     * 24 May 93            4
   No report available for the period 25 May 93 through 26 Apr 95
       30 Sep 95            5
     * 30 Sep 96            4

* Contested Reports

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed  the  application
and states that the first time the  24  May  1992  report  would  have  been
considered in the promotion process for senior  master  sergeant  was  cycle
94S8.  However, because the applicant would require a  board  score  greater
than 450.00, no supplemental promotion consideration for this cycle will  be
required should the Board void the report.  The first time the  24 May  1993
report was considered in the promotion process  was  cycle  95S8  to  senior
master sergeant.  Should the Board void or upgrade  the  overall  rating  of
this report  the  applicant  will  be  entitled  to  supplemental  promotion
consideration beginning with cycle 95S8.  The  Air  Force  policy  does  not
allow for an automatic promotion to senior and chief master sergeant.

AFPC/DPPPWB states that it is not true  that  AFPC  has  not  fulfilled  the
intent of the AFBCMR  directive  which  called  for  supplemental  promotion
consideration  to  the  rank  of  senior  master  sergeant  for  all  cycles
commencing  with  94S8.   The  applicant  was  not   provided   supplemental
promotion consideration for cycles  94S8  or  96E8  because  he  would  have
required a board score greater than the maximum board  score  allowed  (450)
which means  he  could  not  have  been  promoted  during  either  of  these
promotion cycles.  Supplemental promotion consideration  for  the  applicant
was delayed until September 1996 because of the time required to obtain  his
records from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC).  Upon receipt  of
his records, the correction announcing his promotion to master sergeant  had
to be made as well as a selection folder established in  order  for  him  to
compete for promotion.  Once this was accomplished his  records  were  being
prepared to meet the  initial  96E8  Evaluation  Board.   According  to  the
reasons outlined in the previous AFBCMR Memorandum 93-06905,  the  applicant
was provided supplemental promotion consideration to senior master  sergeant
for cycles 95S8 and 95E8 and was not selected in the  supplemental  process.
Again, he was not considered for cycles 94S8 and 96E8 because  he  needed  a
board score greater than the maximum of 450.00 to be promoted.

AFPC/DPPPWB states that a review of the applicant’s  Senior  NCO  Evaluation
Brief does not reflect that he has a second  Associates  of  Science  Degree
from the Community College of the Air  Force  in  December  1993.   (He  has
provided a copy of the diploma with his application).  They  state,  if  the
applicant can prove that he made the Base Education  office  aware  of  this
degree and they failed to correct his records accordingly, it  will  entitle
him the supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 95E8.

AFPC/DPPPWB notes that the HAF file reflected the EPRs  closing  30 November
1990 and 24 May 1991; however, they have now been deleted  from  this  file.
These reports were removed from  the  applicant’s  selection  folder  on  18
April 1995, and were not considered in  the  promotion  process  during  any
previous promotion consideration to senior master sergeant.

AFPC/DPPPWB further states that while the applicant  did  previously  suffer
an injustice,  he  was  provided  supplemental  promotion  consideration  as
directed  in  AFBCMR  Memorandum  93-06905,  3  December  1994.   With   the
exception  of  any  supplemental  promotion  consideration  because  of  him
receiving  a  second  Associates  Degree,  he  was   provided   supplemental
promotion consideration for all cycles that he was  otherwise  eligible,  as
directed in the previous memorandum and was not selected  for  promotion  in
the supplemental process.  They state, consequently, he  has  been  provided
fair and impartial promotion  consideration  for  all  cycles  that  he  was
otherwise eligible using the same procedures afforded to others  in  similar
circumstances.  Therefore, unless the AFBCMR voids the EPR  closing  24  May
1993 and the applicant can prove that he  made  the  Base  Education  office
aware of his second Associates Degree and they failed to update his  records
accordingly, there will be no valid reason  to  provide  the  applicant  any
further supplemental promotion consideration or a promotion  to  senior  and
chief master sergeant as he is requesting.

A complete copy  of  their  evaluation,  with  attachment,  is  attached  at
Exhibit D.

The Chief, BCMR and SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed the  application  and
states that they concur with AFPC/DPPPWB’s advisory.  They also  state  that
the contested reports were rendered to the applicant while he served in  the
grade of technical  sergeant.   To  void  the  reports  due  to  retroactive
promotion would widen the gaps  already  present  in  the  applicant’s  duty
history and be a further detriment to his promotion potential.   The  proper
procedure to correct  reports  rendered  to  individuals  who  are  promoted
retroactively is to add  a  statement  to  the  margin  of  the  reports  to
indicate he/she was retroactively promoted to the specific  grade  prior  to
the date the reports were rendered, and they  would  have  no  objection  to
having this  statement  added  to  the  reports.   However,  they  urge  the
applicant to contact the evaluators of the  contested  reports  and  request
them to reaccomplish the reports on the appropriate forms, and then to  seek
the appropriate level of indorsement to be determined by the  evaluators  of
the reports.  They believe reaccomplishing the reports would  be  much  more
beneficial to the applicant, given his unique circumstances.  In  regard  to
the applicant’s request for  direct  promotion,  insufficient  evidence  has
been presented to demonstrate that absent the errors,  he  would  have  been
selected for promotion to senior and chief  master  sergeant.   Furthermore,
to grant a direct promotion would be unfair to all  other  senior  NCOs  who
have extremely competitive records and also did not get promoted.  Based  on
the evidence provided,  they  do  not  support  direct  promotion.   If  the
applicant successfully obtains replacements for the contested reports,  they
believe supplemental promotion consideration by a duly appointed board is  a
more reasonable means of relief than direct promotion.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at  Exhibit
E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and states  that  he  is  truly
disappointed in HQ AFPC for their responses to his requests.  He states  the
evidence to back up his request that the contested reports should be  voided
is solid and overwhelming.  He also believes with the same conviction,  that
the AFBCMR, not HQ AFPC, is in the more advantageous position to  render  an
unbiased judgement concerning his request for  promotion  to  senior  master
sergeant and chief master sergeant.  In  reference  to  AFPC/DPPPAB  stating
that their selection board’s prerogative to render this vital  determination
should not be usurped except under extraordinary  circumstances,  he  states
that his case definitely fits the criteria.  His case is  about  his  career
and how it was destroyed  by  slander.  After  careful  review  of  all  the
evidence, he  is  confident  the  AFBCMR  will  come  to  a  fair  and  just
conclusion.

The applicant amended his application to include his  request  for  voidance
of the EPR, closing 30 September 1996, and that  it  be  replaced  with  the
reaccomplished report he has provided.  The applicant  contends  the  report
contains numerous errors.

In further support of the appeal, applicant provides a  statement  from  the
rater of the EPR, closing 30 September 1996, and a reaccomplished EPR.

The rater states that there were errors made in the preparation of  the  EPR
in  both  the  statements  and  ratings,  and  the  EPR  is  an   inaccurate
interpretation of the applicant’s accomplishments.

Applicant's  complete  responses,  with   attachments,   are   attached   at
Exhibits G and H.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law  or
regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice warranting voidance of the AF  Form
2096, dated 8 January 1992; voidance of  the EPRs closing 24  May  1992  and
24 May 1993, eligibility for the AFGCM for the  period  1 December  1989  to
1 December  1990,  voidance  of  the  EPR  closing  30 September  1996,  and
placement of the  reaccomplished  EPR  closing  30  September  1996  in  his
records.  We note that although the applicant’s 7-level AFSC  was  withdrawn
on 22 October 1990,  we  find  no  documentation  that  any  decertification
action was taken.  In view of  this,  we  believe  the  applicant’s  records
should reflect that his 7-level AFSC which he was awarded  on  13  September
1990, was not withdrawn on 22 October 1990 and the AF  Form  2096,  dated  8
January 1992 be declared void.  In regard to the  contested  EPRs,  we  note
that they were rendered on the applicant while he was a technical  sergeant.
 However,  based  on  a  previous  action  by  the  Board,  the  applicant’s
promotion to the grade of  master  sergeant  was  reinstated  retroactively;
thereby; making his rank on these reports  erroneous.   Furthermore,  during
the contested periods of these reports, the applicant was  kept  in  a  non-
supervisory capacity.  We agree with the comments of  the  Chief,  BCMR  and
SSB Section, in that  voiding  the  reports  will  widen  the  gaps  already
present in the applicant’s duty history and be a further  detriment  to  his
promotion potential.  However, the applicant has been  made  aware  of  this
and still desires to have these reports removed from his records.   In  view
of this, we believe these  reports  should  be  removed  from  his  records.
However,  should  the  applicant  provide  reaccomplished  reports  for  the
contested periods, the Board  would  entertain  his  request  to  have  them
placed in his records. Since the applicant was denied  award  of  the  AFGCM
for the  period  1 December  1989  to  1 December  1990,  and  it  has  been
previously determined that the adverse actions taken against  the  applicant
during this period were  in  error  or  unjust,  we  believe  he  should  be
eligible for the AFGCM during this period.  The applicant also requests  the
EPR,  closing  30 September  1996,   be   voided   and   replaced   with   a
reaccomplished report he  has  provided.   The  rater  of  this  report  has
provided a statement indicating that the  report  was  erroneously  prepared
with respect to the statements and ratings.  Based on  this  statement,  and
since the rating officials have reaccomplished the report,  we  believe  the
contested report should be removed from his records and  replaced  with  the
reaccomplished report.  In addition, the Board recommends he  be  considered
for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant  retroactive  to  cycle
94S8 with date of rank 1 March 1994.  Therefore, we  recommend  his  records
be corrected to the extent indicated below.

4.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice  regarding  the  remainder  of  his
requests.  In this respect, we note that the applicant  has  requested  that
he be invited to attend the Senior NCO  Academy  at  the  earliest  possible
date; be awarded a 9-skill level, and  be  provided  supplemental  promotion
consideration to the grade of chief master sergeant (E-9).   However,  since
the applicant was retired from active duty upon reaching his  high  year  of
tenure as a master sergeant, unless he is promoted to the  grade  of  senior
master sergeant through the supplemental  promotion  consideration  process,
there exists no basis to warrant  consideration  of  these  requests.   With
respect to his request that the Board direct the IG to investigate the  past
conduct of a Reserve NCO, we note that the Board  is  without  authority  to
direct such action.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the  contrary,
we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable  consideration  of  these
portions of his application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

            a.   On 22 October 1990, his 7-level Air  Force  Specialty  Code
(AFSC) was not withdrawn.

      b.    On 13 May 1991, he was not denied award of the  Air  Force  Good
Conduct Medal (AFGCM) for the period 1 December 1989 to 1 December 1990.

      c.    The Classification/On-the-Job Training  Action,  AF  Form  2096,
dated 8 January 1992, be declared void and removed from his records.

      d.    The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs), AF Forms 910,  rendered
for the periods 25 May 1991 through 24 May 1992 and 25 May 1992  through  24
May 1993 be declared void and removed from his records.

            e.   The  Senior  Enlisted  Performance  Report,  AF  Form  911,
rendered for the period  1  October  1995  through  30  September  1996,  be
declared void and removed from his records.

            f.   The  Senior  Enlisted  Performance  Report,  AF  Form  911,
rendered  for  the  period  1  October  1995  through  30  September   1996,
reflecting the last sentence in Block V, Rater’s Comments, “A senior NCO  we
need to keep moving up—promote to SMSgt as soon as eligible!”, be  filed  in
his records in its proper sequence.

      It is further recommended that he be provided  supplemental  promotion
consideration to the grade of senior master  sergeant  for  all  appropriate
cycles, beginning with cycle 94S8, consisting of a  mandatory  rescoring  of
his corrected record against the appropriate benchmark records.

      If  AFPC  discovers  any  adverse  factors  during  or  subsequent  to
supplemental consideration that are separate and  apart,  and  unrelated  to
the issues involved in  this  application,  that  would  have  rendered  the
applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be  documented
and presented to the board for a final  determination  on  the  individual's
qualification for the promotion.

      If supplemental promotion consideration results in the  selection  for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the  records
shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade  on  the
date of rank established by  the  supplemental  promotion  and  that  he  is
entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits  of  such  grade  as  of  that
date.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 1 October 1998, under the provisions of AFI 2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Robert W. Zook, Member
                  Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member
                  Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote)

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jul 97, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Record of Proceedings, dated 3 Dec 94, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 7 Oct 97.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 22 Oct 97.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Nov 97.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Nov 97, w/atchs.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Dec 97, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair