RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00251
            INDEX CODES:  131.00, 111.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be  corrected  to  reflect  the  effective  date  for  his
promotion to the grade of master sergeant as 1 Apr 96, rather  than  1
Nov 97, with back and allowances.

The Nonrecommendation  for  Promotion  Letter  be  declared  void  and
removed from his records.

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 24 Aug 97 be  placed  on
an AF Form 911 vice AF Form 910.

He be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to  the  grade
of senior master sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was nonrecommended for promotion to the grade  of  master  sergeant
due to command influence.  The decision was unjust and  not  based  on
the facts.  The Office of Special Investigations (OSI) report did  not
find him guilty of a Weighted  Airman  Promotion  System  (WAPS)  test
compromise.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement,
supportive statement, memorandums for record, copies of  a  letter  of
reprimand  (LOR)  and  nonrecommendation  for  promotion,  and   other
documents associated with the matter under review.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
master sergeant, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Nov 97.

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letters  prepared  by  the  appropriate  offices  of  the  Air  Force.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record  of
Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Enlisted  Promotion  and  Military  Testing  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPWB,
reviewed this application and recommended denial.  DPPPWB  noted  that
the applicant was selected  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  master
sergeant during the 95E7 cycle (promotions effective Aug 95 - Jul 96).
 He  received  a  promotion  sequence  number  that  would  have  been
incremented 1 Apr 96.  In Jan 96, the projected promotion  was  placed
in a withhold status in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Table  1.2,  Note
4, pending the results of an OSI investigation  based  on  an  alleged
WAPS test compromise  in  Jan  94.   On  2  Oct  96,  the  applicant’s
commander removed his name from the selection list for the 95E7  cycle
based on the findings of the OSI  investigation.   The  applicant  was
again  selected  for  promotion  during  the  97E7  cycle  (promotions
effective Aug 97 - Jul 98), and assumed the grade on 1 Nov 97.  DPPPWB
stated that, on  20  Feb  98,  they  confirmed  with  the  applicant’s
Military  Personnel  Flight  (MPF)  that  the  nonrecommendation   for
promotion  letter,  dated  2  Oct  96,  had  been  removed  from   the
applicant’s records.

DPPPWB noted the applicant’s contention that he did not compromise the
WAPS promotion test and, based on the evidence  available,  there  was
nothing to prove that he did.   He  was  accused  of  having  received
personal study material containing marked  Air  Force  Personnel  Test
(AFPT) testable material from another individual in Jan 94.  This  was
a violation of Article 92 of the Uniformed Code  of  Military  Justice
(UCMJ).  Promotion testing for the 95A7 (the cycle  in  question)  was
conducted during Jan - Mar 94.  The applicant  was  not  selected  for
promotion during this cycle but was selected the next cycle, 95E7, and
his name was subsequently removed from the selection list.

According to DPPPWB, the applicant’s commander based the LOR  and  the
nonrecommendation for promotion letter on the fact the OSI  Report  of
Investigation revealed the applicant  did  receive  and  use  personal
study materials containing marked AFPT testable material, to  wit:   a
Promotion Fitness Examination (PFE) manual and a computer printout  of
Specialty  Knowledge  Test  (SKT)  questions  and   answers.    DPPPWB
indicated that they found it difficult to believe  that  a  lieutenant
colonel in the United States Air Force would blatantly fabricate these
accusations to satisfy the desires of others, as the applicant and his
supervisor claimed; that is, undue command influence.  DPPPWB believes
the  applicant  needs  to  provide  a  copy  of  the  OSI  Report   of
Investigation to the Board for its review since he  maintains  he  was
not guilty of a test compromise.

Concerning  the  applicant’s  request   for   supplemental   promotion
consideration to senior master sergeant, DPPPWB stated that, if he had
been  promoted  on  1  Apr  96,  he  would  have  been  eligible   for
consideration beginning with the 98E8 cycle (promotions effective  Apr
98 - Mar 99), provided he was otherwise eligible  and  recommended  by
his commander.  Based on his current date of rank (DOR) of 1  Nov  97,
he would not be  eligible  for  consideration  until  the  00E8  cycle
(promotions effective Apr 00 -  Mar  01),  provided  he  is  otherwise
eligible and recommended.

A complete copy of the DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The BCMR and SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this  application  and
recommended that the decision of the Board be held in  abeyance  until
they  have  had  an  opportunity  to  review   the   OSI   Report   of
Investigation.  DPPPAB stated that, although  the  applicant  contends
that he was found  “not  guilty”  of  a  test  compromise,  they  must
conclude the report substantiated at least  some  of  the  allegations
made  against  him,  otherwise  the  commander’s  actions   would   be
unwarranted.  However, the applicant failed to  include  the  findings
from the OSI investigation in his appeal package.  Further,  the  fact
that they did not hear from the commander spoke volumes.   The  burden
of proof is on the applicant.  He has not substantiated the  promotion
nonrecommendation was not rendered in  good  faith  by  his  commander
based on knowledge available to him  at  the  time.   Therefore,  they
recommended that the applicant’s DOR not be adjusted from 1 Nov 97  to
1 Apr 96, or that he receive any back pay or  allowances.   If,  after
review of the OSI report, the board grants the applicant’s request  to
an adjustment to his DOR, DPPPAB does not agree that  the  applicant’s
EPR closing 24 Aug 97 should be reaccomplished  on  an  AF  Form  911.
According to DPPPAB, the proper procedure to correct reports  rendered
on 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 report.

A complete copy of the DPPPAB evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

By  letter,  dated  26  Mar  98,  the  applicant  provided  additional
documentary evidence (copy of the OSI Report of Investigation) for the
Board’s consideration (Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  The evidence of  record
reveals that the applicant was given an LOR, with the establishment of
an  Unfavorable  Information  File  (UIF),  for  receiving  and  using
personal study materials containing Air Force  Personnel  Test  (AFPT)
testable material from another Air Force member, which this individual
admitted to during a polygraph  examination.   As  a  result,  he  was
nonrecommended for promotion to the grade of master sergeant.  After a
thorough review of the available evidence, we are not  persuaded  that
the information used as a  basis  for  the  LOR  and  the  applicant’s
nonrecommendation for promotion was erroneous, or there was  an  abuse
of discretionary authority.  In view of the above, and in the  absence
of clear-cut evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 probable  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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 13 Apr 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
      Mr. Mike Novel, Member
      Mr. James R. Lonon, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Jan 98, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 23 Feb 98.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 3 Mar 98.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 Mar 98.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 26 Mar 98, w/atch.





                                   TERRY A. YONKERS
                                   Panel Chair