RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01499

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    He be promoted to the grade of major, with a date of rank in 1998,  or
in the alternative,

2.    He be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) effective  and
with date of rank (DOR) of 1 August 1994.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was denied fair and equitable consideration for promotion  to  the  grade
of major.

The applicant states that after his reinstatement to  active  duty,  he  was
forced to compete for promotion against his original year group who  had  an
extra two years worth of Officer Performance Reports  (OPRs).   Although  he
was definitely  denied  opportunities  through  no  fault  of  his  own,  he
received no special consideration in the assignment  or  promotion  process.
It would serve no useful purpose for him  to  be  considered  by  a  Special
Selection Board (SSB) since his record may not be able to complete based  on
missed  opportunities.   He  believes  the  Board  can  determine  that   an
injustice occurred and he possesses  the  potential  to  assume  the  higher
grade.  He does not desire any back  pay  or  retroactive  DOR,  since  this
would just put him back with the same peers who had a  two  year  advantage.
He believes a DOR in 1998 would put him on a level playing field with  those
officers who were two years behind him.

The  applicant  states  that  in  order  to  retain  his   eligibility   for
retirement, he must  now  reenlist.   However,  he  has  been  advised  that
although he was selected for promotion to the grade  of  technical  sergeant
(E-6) in 1994, since  his  records  were  corrected  to  show  that  he  was
reinstated as a commissioned officer, he will have to reenlist  as  a  staff
sergeant (E-5).  If he is not promoted to the grade of  major,  he  requests
promotion to the grade of technical sergeant with  DOR  of  1  August  1994,
since this is the DOR he would have received had he  not  been  returned  to
commissioned status.

The applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 August 1983.

On 29 October 1985, the applicant  was  honorably  discharged  to  accept  a
commission.

The applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant on 30 October 1985.

On 20 July 1992, the  applicant  was  not  selected  for  retention  by  the
Reduction in Force (RIF) board.

The applicant was involuntarily separated on 31 December 1992.

On 1 June 1993, the applicant enlisted in  the  Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of staff sergeant (E-5).

On 9 August 1993, the applicant was selected  for  retention  by  a  Special
Selection Board.

On 8 March 1994, the Board considered and granted  applicant’s  request  for
reinstatement  in  a  commissioned  status.    The   Board   directed   that
applicant’s records be corrected to show  that  he  was  not  released  from
active duty on 31 December 1992, but on that date he continued to  serve  on
extended active duty in the grade of captain (Exhibit C).

On 14 June 1994, the applicant was selected for promotion to  the  grade  of
technical sergeant (E-6)  during  cycle  95A6,  with  a  Promotion  Sequence
Number (PSN) which would have been incremented on 1 August 1994.

On 21 July 1994, the applicant returned to  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
captain with DOR of 30 October 1989.

The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade  of
major by the Calendar Year 1996A (CY96A) and CY97C Central  Major  Selection
Board.

On 31 May 1998, the applicant was involuntarily separated.

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  1  June  1998,  in  the
grade of staff sergeant (E-5) for a period of 5 years.

The applicant was  promoted  to  the  grade  of  technical  sergeant  (E-6),
effective and with date of rank of 1 August 1999.





A resume of applicant’s OER/OPR profile, follows:

        PERIOD ENDING              EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

           8 May 86                          1-1
           8 Nov 86                          1-1
           8 May 87                         1-1-1
           8 Nov 87                         1-1-1
          16 Apr 88                         1-1-1
          10 Oct 88                  Meets Standards (MS)
          15 May 89                          MS
          29 Sep 90                          MS
          10 Aug 90                  Training Report (TR)
          20 Jun 91                          MS
        * 20 Jun 92                          MS
     Not rated for the period 21 Jun 92 through 11 Jul 94
       ** 31 May 95                          MS
          31 May 96                          MS
      *** 31 May 97                          MS
          28 Jan 98                          MS

* Top report reviewed by RIF board

** Top report reviewed by CY96A board

*** Top report reviewed by CY97C board


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Officer Promotion &  Appointment  Section,  AFPC/DPPPO,  reviewed
this application and states that it  is  not  unusual  for  officers  to  be
returned to active duty as if they  had  no  break  in  service  and  become
immediately eligible for promotion.  Although personnel  in  this  situation
often have periods of undocumented performance when meeting a board, in  the
applicant’s case, he had over 18 months on active duty prior to meeting  his
first board.  They believe this allowed him sufficient time to  establish  a
record and have recent performance documented in an OPR.

AFPC/DPPPO states that applicant has not  provided  sufficient  evidence  to
show his situation is any  more  unique  than  other  officers  returned  to
active duty.  It is not possible to explain specifically why  the  applicant
was not selected for promotion as board members do not  record  the  reasons
why they score a specific record as they  did.   Therefore,  they  recommend
the application be denied.

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

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPAES, reviewed  the  application
and states that the applicant requests his enlistment grade on 1  June  1998
be  corrected  to  reflect  technical  sergeant  (E-6),  rather  than  staff
sergeant (E-5) if the Board does not set aside his  promotion  nonselections
to the grade of major.  They note that although the applicant  was  selected
for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) on 14 June 1994,  the
Board corrected his record to show that he was not  in  an  enlisted  status
from 1 June 1993 through 20 July 1994 and he was not  released  from  active
duty on 31 December 1992, but continued to service in the grade of  captain.
 As a result of the corrections to his record, his  selection  to  technical
sergeant was no longer valid (i.e., he could not complete for  promotion  to
technical  sergeant  in  an  enlisted  status  if  he  was  serving   in   a
commissioned status in the grade of  captain.   They  defer  to  AFPC/DPPAES
regarding the applicant’s enlistment grade on 1 June 1998.

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

The Chief, Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE,  reviewed  the  application
and states that under the provisions of Title 10 USC Section 8258, a  former
enlisted member of the Regular Air Force (RegAF) who has  served  on  active
duty as a Reserve officer is entitled to reenlistment in the  RegAF  in  the
enlisted grade held before service as an officer.  There is no evidence  the
applicant held the grade of  technical  sergeant  while  serving  on  active
duty.  Therefore, they recommend denial of  applicant’s  request  to  change
his enlistment grade.

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  applicant  reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluation  and  states  that  he
disagrees with the Air Force’s position  that  since  he  was  retroactively
commissioned, he was an officer for the entire period and  anything  he  did
in an enlisted status does not count.  If he  had  received  an  Article  15
during the period he is sure it would have counted and does  not  understand
why his enlisted promotion would not.  It appears his enlisted  time  counts
when it is convenient for the Air Force, but not when it could benefit  him.
 While he agrees that according to the regulation, he  is  not  entitled  to
the grade of technical sergeant; however, the Board  is  not  restricted  by
regulation.  It is  also  his  understanding  that  when  an  individual  is
selected for Officer Training School and  has  an  enlisted  promotion  line
number, a statement is placed in the individual’s records in  case  they  do
not complete the commissioning program.  He is appreciative of  the  Board’s
decision to restore his commissioned status in 1994 but he feels the  timing
of that action inadvertently  created  another  injustice.   Had  the  Board
known of the 18-month gap in his selection folder was going  to  render  him
non-competitive for promotion to major and cause him to return  to  enlisted
status, the Board would have advised AFPC to wait until  1  August  1994  to
return his commission  so  that  he  could  have  pinned  on  the  grade  of
technical sergeant.  Not only was he not promoted to  the  grade  of  major,
but now he is being required to complete again for promotion  to  the  grade
of technical sergeant, which he previously earned.

The applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit 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.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  In this  respect,  we  note  that
after being involuntarily separated under a RIF, the applicant  enlisted  in
the Regular Air Force and  was  selected  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
technical sergeant.  The applicant was subsequently selected  for  retention
on active duty by a Special Selection Board and his records  were  corrected
to show that he was not released from active duty on 31 December  1992,  but
on that date he continued to serve on extended active duty in the  grade  of
captain.  As a result of this correction, his  promotion  selection  to  the
grade of technical sergeant was no longer valid.   When  the  applicant  was
selected for retention, he was given a  choice  as  to  whether  or  not  he
wanted to return to active duty as a commission officer.  Once he made  this
decision, his promotion to the enlisted  grade  of  technical  sergeant  was
voided.  It should be noted that the applicant from 1992 to  1998,  received
active duty pay as a captain.  Therefore, we find no  basis  upon  which  to
back date his promotion to the grade of  technical  sergeant  from  1999  to
1994.

4.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we  find  nothing  to
warrant setting aside his promotion nonselection to the grade of major.  The
applicant contends that he was forced to compete for promotion  against  his
original year group who had an extra two years worth of OPRs.   However,  we
are not persuaded the gap in his records was  the  cause  of  his  promotion
nonselections.   We  note  that  at  the  time  of  his  considerations  for
promotion, he had 4 OPRs rendered as a captain for the  CY96A  board  and  6
OPRs for the CY97C board.  As such, we believe he had  a  sufficient  record
to compete for promotion. Consequently, we do not find  sufficient  evidence
that he was denied fair and equitable consideration  for  promotion  to  the
grade of major. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we
find no basis  upon  which  to  recommend  favorable  consideration  of  his
requests.


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 29 July 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chair
                  Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member
                  Mrs. Margaret A. Zook, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 May 98, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  AFBCMR Docket Number 93-06448.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 17 Aug 98.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 26 Aug 98.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 1 Oct 98.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MIB, dated 12 Oct 98.




             HENRY ROMO, JR.
                                  Panel Chair