RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-00104
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.09

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

___________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was denied promotion over the years as a result of his filing of
an Equal Opportunity and  Treatment  (EOT)  complaint  against  his
superior, while he was serving in the position of  Base  Individual
Mobilization Augmentee Administrator (BIMAA) at  Andrews  AFB.   He
was denied an extension or renewal of his position as a  recruiter,
which subsequently resulted in the denial of his promotion to  E-8.
He was twice unjustifiably denied promotion, despite having met all
qualifications for promotion, in accordance with Air Force  Reserve
directives.

The applicant’s statement and the evidence submitted in support  of
his appeal are at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained  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 Vice Commander, Headquarters Air Reserve Personnel Center,  (HQ
ARPC/CV), recommended denial.  The applicant states he  was  denied
promotion  to  E-8  and  subsequent  extended  active  duty   (EAD)
assignments based on an EOT complaint he filed while serving as the
BIMAA.  The Summary Report of Inquiry, October 1987, based  on  the
EOT complaint,  found  no  evidence  of  discrimination  or  unfair
treatment.   The  applicant  received   an   outstanding   Enlisted
Performance Report (EPR) and an Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM)
after filing the EOT complaint.

The  promotion  denial  was  a  deferral  dependent  upon   further
observation  with  reconsideration  in  the  Fall  of   1987.    In
accordance with AFI 36-2502, for promotion in the USAFR while on an
EAD tour under Title 10 USC,  an  enlisted  member  must  meet  all
requirements listed in Table 4.2, including recommendation  of  the
supervisor.  The promotion recommendation authority for  the  BIMAA
at Andrews AFB in February 1987, was the Director of Reserve  Force
Management for then Headquarters Military Airlift Command (HQ MAC).
 He felt that further observation was required prior  to  promoting
the applicant to E-8.

The applicant took a voluntary demotion to E-6 in order  to  return
to the participating Reserves in October 1989.  He will be entitled
to retired pay at age 60, based on his highest grade held  of  E-7.
ARPC/CV stated they cannot speculate on  any  decisions  concerning
the applicant’s promotion opportunities after his EAD tour ended in
1987.

The applicant filed his EOT complaint in August 1987, after he  was
not selected for renewal of his 3-year initial BIMAA  tour.   Since
there was no finding  of  racial  discrimination  in  the  previous
investigation and the EOT was  filed  after  the  subject  actions,
there can be no reprisal occurring prior to the filing of  the  EOT
complaint.  The EAD tours  the  applicant  mentions  applying  for,
BIMAA and Reserve Recruiting Service, were all  3-year  competitive
tours of duty with no obligation to extend, retain or  promote  the
incumbent.  The selection  was  made  based  on  a  review  of  all
applicants and the needs of the  position.   There  is  nothing  to
indicate  that  the  applicant  ever  applied  for  another   BIMAA
position, but instead concentrated  his  efforts  on  applying  for
Reserve  Recruiting  tours.   A  complete  copy  of   the   ARPC/CV
evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 26 May 2000, for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit D).
 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 not timely filed; however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient  relevant   evidence   has   been   presented   to
demonstrate the existence of  probable  error  or  injustice.   The
applicant's complete submission was  thoroughly  reviewed  and  his
contentions were duly noted; however, we do not find his assertions
and  the  documentation  presented  in  support   of   his   appeal
sufficiently persuasive  to  override  the  rationale  provided  by
ARPC/CV.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we
agree with the recommendation of ARPC/CV and adopt their  rationale
as the basis for our decision that  the  applicant  has  failed  to
sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered  either  an
error or an injustice.  Accordingly, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The documentation provided with this  case  was  sufficient  to
give the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved  and  a
personal appearance,  with  or  without  counsel,  would  not  have
materially added to that understanding.  Therefore, the request for
a hearing is not favorably considered.

___________________________________________________________________

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 3 August 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Marcia Bachman, Member
                 Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Jan 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ ARPC/CV, dated 9 May 00.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 26 May 00.




                                   GERALD B. KAUVAR
                                   Panel Chair