RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01062
                 INDEX CODE 135.02  131.09
                 COUNSEL:  None

                 HEARING DESIRED:  No
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His grade of E-7 be restored and he be awarded  13  additional  points
for the period 30 July 1996 to 29 July 1997 for a satisfactory year of
Federal service, credited for 12 years, 4 months, and 19 days of prior
active Federal service [rather than 12 years, 1 month  and  16  days],
and made eligible for the early retirement program [disability].
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons applicant believes he has been  the  victim  of  an  error
and/or an injustice are contained in his complete submission, which is
at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

By Special Order        ,  dated  6  March  1995,  the  applicant  was
demoted without prejudice from master sergeant to  staff  sergeant  in
the          Air National Guard  (ANG)  effective  5 March  1995.  The
Personnel Manager at the  Airlift Wing, ANG,  informally  advised  the
AFBCMR Staff that this demotion was the result of there  not  being  a
master sergeant slot available.

On 3 April l998, the  Office  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force,
Personnel  Council,  determined  that  the  applicant  did  not  serve
satisfactorily in the highest grade of master sergeant but  did  serve
satisfactorily in the grade of technical sergeant within  the  meaning
of Section 1212, Title 10, USC.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant's military records, are contained in  the  official
documentation provided by the applicant and in the letter prepared  by
the appropriate office of the Air Force.   Accordingly,  there  is  no
need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, evaluated the case and  states  that
the applicant has received all entitlements due him. He was previously
briefed that he would have an option of accepting an early  retirement
or discharge with severance pay and the Chief understands it was later
discovered that the applicant did not meet the qualifications of Title
10, USC, 12731. Nonetheless, the applicant  received  the  appropriate
compensation afforded a member in his situation (severance  pay).   He
could have become eligible for retirement pay at age 60 if  he  had  6
years of Reserve time and more than 15 years of service but less  than
20 years of service and was separated due to physical  disability.  He
does not qualify under  either  requirement  and  therefore  does  not
qualify for retired pay at age 60, but is eligible for severance  pay.
Denial is again recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14
December 1998 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date,
no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Retirements/Separation  &  Points,  HQ  ARPC/DPPR,   also
reviewed the case and advised that if the Board awarded the  applicant
13 additional points for  the  retention/retirement  (R/R)  year  1996
through 1997, he  would  have  one  additional  year  of  satisfactory
Reserve service. This would bring his total to 18 years, 1 month,  and
16 days of satisfactory service, with the last 6 years  of  qualifying
service in a Reserve component. He would  then  meet  all  eligibility
requirements for early qualification for retired pay at age  60  under
the   Reserve   Transition   Assistance   Program   due   to   medical
disqualification.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the additional  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 19 July 1999 in accordance with established  policy.   As
of this date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________

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. After a thorough  review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that his E-7 grade should  be  restored  or  he  be  awarded
additional creditable service for retirement. Applicant’s  contentions
are  duly  noted;  however,  we  do  not  find  these   uncorroborated
assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to  override
the rationale provided by the Air Force. He has provided  no  evidence
demonstrating that the E-7 grade should be restored or that he  should
be afforded additional creditable service time  and  compensation.  We
therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air  Force  and  adopt
the rationale expressed  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having  suffered  either
an error or an injustice. In view of the above and  absent  persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________

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 9 September 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
                  Mr. John E. Pettit, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Apr 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, ANG/DPPU, dated 30 Oct 98, w/atch.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPPR, dated 30 Jun 99.
   Exhibit D.  Letters, AFBCMR, dated 14 Dec 98 & 19 Jul 99.



                                   DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                   Panel Chair