SECOND ADDENDUM TO
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  95-01726
            INDEX CODE:  145

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His record be corrected to reflect that  he  was  not  placed  on  the
Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) and that he was  promoted  to
the grade of master sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

In an application to the Air Force Board for  Correction  of  Military
Records (AFBCMR), dated 10 May 95, the applicant  requested  that  his
records be corrected to reflect that he was not placed on the TDRL and
that he be promoted to the grade of master sergeant.  On 8 Aug 96, the
Board considered and denied his application.  However, before the case
was finalized, the applicant provided additional documentation.   This
information was reviewed by the BCMR Medical Consultant who  indicated
that there was a basis to grant relief.  The  Board  again  considered
the application, with  this  new  information,  and  on  1 Jul  97,  a
majority of the Board  recommended  partial  relief  in  the  form  of
supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of  master  sergeant
by the Calendar Year 1995E7 (CY95E) promotion cycle (see Exhibit U).

The  AFBCMR  was  advised  by  the  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,
AFPC/DPPPWB, that an individual cannot be considered for  supplemental
promotion consideration while on the TDRL.  As a result, on 23 Jul 97,
a  corrected  directive  was   inadvertently   issued   removing   the
applicant’s name from the TDRL.  As a consequence, the Defense Finance
and Accounting Service (DFAS) commenced recoupment action against  the
applicant.   In  addition,  his  Military   Personnel   Flight   (MPF)
apparently started processing him for separation under  provisions  of
the Air Force’s High Year of Tenure (HYT) policy.

On 17 Oct 97, the Memorandum for the Chief of Staff, dated 23 Jul  97,
was revoked (see Exhibit V).  This action would allow the applicant to
remain on active duty, and,  should  have  terminated  any  recoupment
actions by DFAS.

On 26 Aug 97, the applicant requested direct promotion to the grade of
master sergeant contending that the Air Force  issued  scores  on  his
behalf by averaging out his scores for 1996 and 1997 test cycles.   He
contends that his supplemental promotion consideration should be based
on his records, not on scores for tests he did not have an opportunity
to take.  He also contended that he should have  been  considered  for
promotion as a Tactical Command and Control Specialist rather  than  a
Tactical Aircraft Maintenance Technician.   On  7 Jun  98,  the  Board
denied applicant’s request (see Exhibit W).

On 27 Jul 98, the applicant provided a three-page  letter  disagreeing
with the Board’s decision based on  the  fact  that  his  request  for
removal of TDRL time was not addressed in the decision  and  promotion
to the grade of master sergeant cannot be accurately  addressed  until
the TDRL time issue is resolved (see Exhibit X).

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  AFPC/DPPPWB,   reviewed   the
applicant’s requests and indicated that the  Stripes  for  Exceptional
Performers (STEP) Program was implemented on 1 Oct 80 and is a program
authorizing commanders of major air commands  and  Separate  Operating
Agencies to  select  and  promote  a  limited  number  of  outstanding
performers to the grade of staff sergeant through master sergeant.  In
this regard, STEP promotions complement the Weighted Airman  Promotion
System (WAPS) for the middle grades and are  designed  to  accommodate
unique and unusual circumstances which, in the  commander’s  judgment,
clearly warrant promotion.   Exceptional  performers  are  most  often
individuals  who  have  unusual  success  at  mission   accomplishment
regardless of  the  obstacles.   The  STEP  Program  is  an  intensely
competitive selection process.  To illustrate, during the last  fiscal
year, there was an eligible population of about 123,000 with 422 total
stripes, resulting in a promotion opportunity of  about  one-third  of
one percent.  Many individuals who are nominated do not understand why
they are not selected for promotion under the STEP Program  and  there
is no way to determine an individual’s relative standing or to explain
why an individual was or  was  not  selected.   However,  it  must  be
understood that the competitive nature of the selection process caused
by  the  limited  number  of  quotas  is  ample  reason   to   explain
nonselection.  Nonselection under STEP does not  necessarily  indicate
an individual is not qualified or deserving of promotion.  Rather,  in
the  board’s  judgment,  others  with  whom   the   member   competed,
demonstrated greater potential to perform the duties  and  assume  the
responsibilities of the  next  higher  grade.   Nonselection  in  STEP
promotion competition normally cannot  be  attributed  to  any  single
factor nor does it mean that an individual’s contributions  have  been
overlooked or lightly considered.  Rather, it  is  indicative  of  the
intensely competitive nature of the STEP promotion selection process.

DPPPWB  further  explains  that  basic  eligibility  requirements  for
promotion to master sergeant under STEP are:  (1) 1 year time-in-grade
(TIG) as a technical sergeant, (2)  8  years’  Total  Active  Military
Service, (3) completion of the Command Noncommissioned  Officer  (NCO)
Academy, (4) possess a Primary AFSC (PAFSC) at the 7-skill level,  (5)
last Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) not be  referral,  and  (6)  no
other negative factors or adverse actions, to include placement on the
Weight Management Program (WMP).  The  TIG,  time  in  service  (TIS),
PAFSC at the 7-skill level, completion of the Command NCO Academy  and
no referral EPR requirements were satisfied at the time the  applicant
returned to active duty on 1 Mar 95.  DPPPWB is unable at  this  point
to verify any other adverse actions.  As a matter of information,  AFI
36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, paragraph 2.7, does not  allow  for
supplemental consideration under the STEP Program.

A complete copy of the  Air  Force  evaluation,  with  attachment,  is
attached at Exhibit Y.

The Chief,  USAF  Classification  Branch,  AFPC/DPPAC,  reviewed  this
application  and  indicated  that  based  on  information   available,
applicant’s TDRL 214 reflecting AFSC 27550, 1 year and 6  months,  was
incorrect and should reflect AFSC 27530, 1 year and 6  months.   There
is no documentation in either applicant’s original  package  nor  this
one to support upgrade to the 5-skill level in AFSC  275X0  (currently
1C4X1).  There was  no  downgrade  action.   When  the  applicant  was
returned to active duty, the assignment manager considered utilization
in AFSC 2A373J as in the best interest of the Air Force.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit Z.

The Registrar, Community College  of  the  Air  Force,  CCAF/RR,  also
reviewed  this  application  and  indicated  that  a  review  of   the
applicant’s records reflect the following:

      a.    CCAF progress report, dated 25 Apr 95,  does  not  reflect
the 275X0 AFSC (or its new designation, 1C4X1).

      b.    CCAF progress report, dated 4 Oct  95,  does  reflect  the
1C4X1 AFSC which is the new  AFSC  number  for  the  old  275X0  AFSC.
Specifically, this report reflects applicant’s AFSC as 1C451.  The “5”
indicates the 5-level.  This data flows to CCAF  from  the  Air  Force
Personnel Center (AFPC) every two weeks as part of the Uniform  Airman
Report (UAR).

      c.    Applicant completed two CCAF degrees as follows:

            (1)  Aircraft Systems Maintenance Technology -  graduating
on 24 Apr 95.

            (2)  Information Systems Technology - graduating on 26 Oct
95.

      d.    The  CCAF  degree  program  for  the  1C4X1  AFSC  is  the
Information  Systems  Technology.   The  5  level  is   required   for
graduation.

A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachments, is attached  at
Exhibit AA.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Applicant reviewed the additional Air Force evaluations and provided a
two-page  rebuttal  statement  indicating,  in  part,  that   he   has
repeatedly shown the Board that the Air Force  made  mistakes  in  his
whole career - from the time of the medical misdiagnosis to  today  by
the Air Force now saying that his DD Form 214 (Certificate of  Release
or Discharge From Active Duty) is now incorrect.  He provided a letter
from his commander stating that he should be awarded a 5-level in  the
1C4X1 (275X0) AFSC and a copy of his AF Form 623a (On-The-Job Training
Record Continuation Sheet) showing his upgrade  progression  and  that
his supervisor had submitted him for  his  5-level  in  1C4X1  (275X0)
AFSC.  He  does  not  concur  with  the  information  from  AFPC/DPPAC
regarding his DD Form 214 and AFSCs (see Exhibit CC).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.   After  thoroughly
reviewing the additional documentation, we  are  again  not  persuaded
that the applicant’s TDRL time  should  be  voided  or  he  should  be
promoted to the grade of  master  sergeant.   As  we  have  previously
determined, applicant’s placement on the  TDRL  was  appropriate;  and
secondly, he has been provided  supplemental  promotion  consideration
for all appropriate cycles and not selected.  It appears he now  wants
the Board to promote him under the STEP program; however, he  provides
no evidence he would have been selected, if  he  had  been  nominated.
Therefore, we find he has failed to sustain his  burden  that  he  has
suffered either an error or an injustice and thus find  no  compelling
basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

2.    With respect to the AFSC issue on applicant’s TDRL DD Form  214,
the Air Force has acknowledged that an error was  made  on  the  275X0
AFSC by showing that applicant has been awarded the five-skill  level.
This was apparently detected when applicant was reinstated  to  active
duty  and  he  was  given  the  correct  three-skill  level   in   the
corresponding AFSC (1C4X1).  Therefore, since this constitutes nothing
more than a harmless error and applicant provides no documentation  to
support his contention that he had been awarded the  five-skill  level
before being placed on the TDRL, the majority of the  Board  finds  no
compelling basis to change the contested  AFSC  at  the  time  he  was
reinstated.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 22 March 1999, under the provisions of Air  Force
Instruction 36-2603:

                  Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Member
                  Mr. Gary Appleton, Member
                Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

By a majority  vote,  the  Board  recommended  denial  of  applicant’s
requests.  Ms. Maust voted to grant the applicant’s position on  AFSCs
and skill level on his DD Form 214 but  does  not  wish  to  submit  a
minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit U.   ROP, dated 23 Jul 97, w/atch.
     Exhibit V.   Corrected directive, dated 23 Jul 97.
     Exhibit W.   Addendum to ROP, dated 15 Jul 98.
     Exhibit X.   Letter fr applicant, dated 27 Jul 98.
     Exhibit Y.   Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 28 Sep 98, w/atch.
     Exhibit Z.   Letter, AFPC/DPPAC, dated 28 Sep 98.
     Exhibit AA.  Letter, CCAF/RR, dated 1 Oct 98, w/atchs
     Exhibit BB.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Oct 98.
     Exhibit CC.  Letter fr applicant, dated 14 Oct 98, w/atchs.




                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chair