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

IN THE MATTER OF:                 DOCKET NUMBER:  97-01814
                             INDEX CODE:  131.05

                             COUNSEL:  -

                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of rank (DOR) to the grade of  technical  sergeant  (E-6)  be
backdated, with pay and entitlements.
_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

On 15 January 1998, the Board considered and approved the  applicant’s
initial request to correct his records to reflect he enlisted  in  the
Regular Air Force on 22 February 1993 in the grade of  staff  sergeant
(E-5), rather than senior airman (E-4).  A  summary  of  the  evidence
considered by the Board and the rationale  for  its  decision  is  set
forth in the Record of Proceedings, which is attached at Exhibit E.

On 18 March 1998, the applicant requested that his initial application
be amended to include promotion consideration to technical sergeant (E-
6) (Exhibit F).

On 21 August 1997, the applicant was released from active duty in  the
grade of E-5.  The applicant was  assigned  to  an  active  Air  Force
Reserve position on 20 October 1997 and has been subsequently promoted
to the grade of technical sergeant, (E-6), Air Force Reserve, with  an
effective date and date of rank of 1 May 1998.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

By not having the correct date of rank (DOR) of E-5 from the onset, he
missed three opportunities to test for technical sergeant (E-6)  under
the weighted airman promotion cycle (January of 1995, 1996 and 1997).

In further support of his appeal, he has provided  a  personal  letter
and additional documents associated  with  the  issues  cited  in  his
contentions (Exhibit F).
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Enlisted Promotion  and  Military
Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPW, provided an evaluation  concerning  the
applicant’s    entitlement    to    promotion    (direct/supplemental)
consideration based on the corrected  date  of  rank  (DOR)  to  staff
sergeant  (E-5).   DPPPW  stated  that  based  on  the  correction  of
applicant’s enlistment  grade  to  E-5,  effective  the  date  of  his
enlistment, 22 February 1993, the applicant would have met the time-in-
grade (TIG)  requirement  for  three  promotion  cycles  to  technical
sergeant (E-6) prior to separation on 21  August  1997.   However,  in
addition to meeting the minimum TIG requirement, the member must  also
have the appropriate Primary Air Force Specialty  Code  (PAFSC)  skill
level, not be ineligible for any of the  conditions  outlined  in  the
governing Air Force instruction, and be recommended for  promotion  by
the commander.  DPPPW stated that if the applicant had enlisted as  an
E-5 vice an E-4 (senior airman) on 22 February  1993,  he  would  have
been considered for cycles 95E6 (promotions  effective  Aug  95 -  Jul
96), 96E6 (promotion effective Aug 96 - Jul 97), and 97E6  (promotions
effective Aug 97 - Jul 98) provided he was otherwise qualified.  DPPPW
is not in a position to determine if the  applicant  would  have  been
awarded the 7-Skill Level Primary AFSC necessary before assumption  of
the grade of E-6, if selected.

DPPPW indicated that the  applicant’s  promotion  file  reflects  that
effective July 1997, his Promotion Eligibility Status (PES)  code  was
“C” which denotes a career airman who declines to extend  or  reenlist
to obtain service retainability for a controlled duty assignment, PCS,
TDY and retraining.   This  rendered  him  ineligible  for  promotion.
Promotion selections for the 97E6 cycle were done 19 May 1997, with  a
public release date of 5 June 1997.  Assuming  he  had  completed  and
been  selected  for  this  cycle,  the  applicant   rendered   himself
ineligible for promotion in July  1997  when  he  declined  to  obtain
retainability for PCS/TDY.  Consequently, his promotion  consideration
for the 96E6 cycle is moot.

Under the Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS), members are awarded
promotion points for  six  factors:   Time-In-Grade,  Time-In-Service,
Decorations, Performance Reports, the  Promotion  Fitness  Examination
(PFE), and the Specialty Knowledge Test (SKT).   There  is  a  maximum
total score of 460 points, with the PFE and SKT  counting  100  points
each or  43.4  percent  of  the  total  possible  score.  Because  the
applicant did not take the required PFE and SKT, it is not possible at
this point to supplementally consider him for promotion to E-6.  DPPPW
stated  that  for  the  95E6  cycle,  the  average  selectee  in   the
applicant’s AFSC had 8.05 years TIG and 14.33 years TIS at the time of
selections.  By comparison, the applicant would have  had  2.33  years
TIG and 6.62 years TIS.  For the 96E6 cycle, the average selectee  had
6.71 years TIG and 13.90 years TIS, while the applicant would have had
3.33 years TIG and 7.62  years  TIS.   For  cycle  95E6,  the  average
selectee had a PFE score of 62.82 and an  SKT  score  of  67.83.   For
cycle 96E6, the average selectee had a PFE score of 71.54 and  an  SKT
score of 82.06.  The applicant competed for promotion to E-5  for  two
cycles between 22 February 1993, his date of enlistment, and 21 August
1997, his date of separation.  His  average  PFE  score  for  the  two
cycles was 53.53 and his SKT score was 61.22.

DPPPW   cannot   provide   the   applicant   supplemental    promotion
consideration to E-6 because he does not have the  required  promotion
tests.  In addition, DPPPW does not support direct promotion to E-6 by
the Board.  A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at  Exhibit
G.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel reviewed the  advisory  opinion  and  stated  that  since  the
applicant has since been promoted  to  technical  sergeant  (E-6),  he
requests that his date of rank (DOR)  be  backdated.   Counsel  stated
that the applicant is asking the Board to consider whether  he  should
have been promoted to E-6 earlier based on his revised  date  of  rank
(DOR) for staff sergeant (E-5).  When  the  Board  granted  the  first
request for relief and backdated his DOR for E-5 to 22 February  1993,
it did not address the  three  opportunities  for  promotion  that  he
missed thereby.  Of course  the  applicant  was  unable  to  test  for
promotion for E-6 for cycles 95E6, 96E6 and  97E6  because  he  was  a
senior airman (E-4) at the time  and  therefore  ineligible  to  test.
When the applicant returned to active duty Air  Force,  he  was  at  a
disadvantage when competing for promotion.  He was promoted to E-5  on
1 May  1997.   Counsel  urges  the  Board  to  weigh  the  applicant’s
performance and fitness reports more heavily than his E-5  SKT  scores
when  making  this  promotion   decision.    Review   his   level   of
responsibility, his supervisory positions (team  leader,  NCOIC),  the
strength of his  commander’s  recommendation  for  promotion  and  his
demonstrated level of proficiency, which, in the absence of the proper
SKT scores, will reflect his true  skill  level  in  a  demanding  and
challenging specialty.

Counsel indicated that in July 1997, the applicant had  only  recently
reattained the rank of E-5, which he believe he should have held since
his enlistment on 22 February 1993.  As he  was  debating  whether  to
reenlist, the applicant was  offered  an  Active  Guard/Reserve  (AGR)
position in the rank of E-6.  He would still have  to  achieve  a  “7”
skill rating and wait for the appropriate time in grade in order to be
promoted, but he knew this offered  him  a  better,  faster  promotion
opportunity than he would have on active duty.  After weighing all his
options, he accepted the AGR position and declined reenlistment in the
active Air Force.  He began his AGR tour on 20 October 1997 and on  29
October 1997, he achieved  his  “7”  skill  rating.   When  the  Board
granted his initial appeal  and  backdated  his  DOR  for  E-5  to  22
February 1993, he immediately became eligible for promotion to E-6 and
was promoted on 1 May 1998, just one year after his regular Air  Force
promotion to E-5.

Counsel stated that if the applicant had been able to  enlist  in  the
active Air Force in 1993 as an E-5, he never would have opted  out  of
reenlistment in 1997, and in so doing render  himself  ineligible  for
consideration  for  promotion  in  the  97E6  promotion  cycle.   This
otherwise qualifying event should be  disregarded  and  the  applicant
should be considered for promotion in the 97E6 cycle.

Counsel indicated that an AGR master sergeant (E-7) position  is  open
in his Reserve unit.   The  applicant  meets  all  qualifications  for
promotion to E-7 except time-in-grade (TIG).  If his DOR  for  E-6  is
backdated to 1 July 1997, then he could potentially be promoted to E-7
as early as 1 July 1999, instead of waiting until 1 May 2000.

Counsel’s complete response is appended at Exhibit I.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After a thorough review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  counsel’s
submission, we are unpersuaded that the applicant’s date of  rank  for
technical sergeant (E-6) should be backdated.  The previous  exception
to policy, changing the applicant’s enlisted grade to  staff  sergeant
(E-5), was based on the likelihood that  the  applicant’s  records  at
that time resulted from a personnel office failure, not  his  personal
inattention to his records.  Further, it was noted that the  applicant
had proven in the Air Force Reserve that he  could  test  sufficiently
well.  However, to assume test scores and  other  factors  would  have
been sufficient to earn him the additional  subsequent  promotions  is
not so likely.  After reviewing the score  analysis  provided  by  the
appropriate Air Force office of  primary  responsibility,  we  are  in
agreement with the opinion and recommendation  of  HQ  AFPC/DPPPW  and
adopt their rationale  as  the  basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an injustice.   We  therefore  do
not find the evidence provided has  established  to  our  satisfaction
that had the applicant tested and been considered for promotion during
the subject cycles, the degree of likelihood that he would have been a
selectee is sufficiently great  to  warrant  a  recommendation  for  a
directed promotion.  Additionally, the decision to accept  the  Active
Guard/Reserve (AGR) position in lieu of reenlisting in the active  Air
Force was the  applicant’s  own  personal  choice.   In  view  of  the
foregoing we conclude that no basis exists  upon  which  to  favorably
consider this application.

The applicant's case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.
_________________________________________________________________

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 7 January 1999, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

        Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Panel Chair
        Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member
        Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit E.  Record of Proceedings, dated 17 Mar 98.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from applicant, dated 18 Mar 98.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPW, dated 23 Apr 98, w/atch.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 May 98.
   Exhibit I.  Letter from counsel, dated 17 Aug 98, w/atchs.




                       PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
                       Panel Chair