RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03062
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.02, 121.03

            COUNSEL:  DAV

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

It  appears  that  the  applicant  is  requesting  that   the   Airman
Performance Report (APR) closing 27 April 1989 be upgraded in  Section
IV, Overall Evaluation, from “6” to “9.”

His Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) [AFSC 74270 - Open Mess Management
Supervisor] be reinstated.

He be compensated for 72 days of unused accrued leave, with interest.

His retirement grade be changed from master sergeant  (E-7)  to  chief
master sergeant (E-9), and that he be given credit  for  30  years  of
active duty service.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The APR was unjust and needs to be changed.  His  AFSC  was  withdrawn
partially as a result of the report.  This was  a  retaliatory  action
because he had filed  a  discrimination  claim  at      AFB  prior  to
arriving at his overseas station.

He was denied payment of 72 days of unused accrued leave, which he had
intended to use as terminal leave.  The commanders  did  not  want  to
adjust his  effective  retirement  date  to  accommodate  use  of  his
rightfully earned leave.

He was denied promotion as a result of this injustice at his  overseas
station and believes he is  entitled  to  just  compensation  for  his
earning potential that was unfairly obstructed by Air Force officials.

Applicant’s complete statement, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 5 July 1966, applicant contracted his  initial  enlistment  in  the
Regular Air Force.  He served on continuous active duty, entering  his
last enlistment on 1 July 1986.  His highest  grade  held  was  master
sergeant, with an effective date and date of rank of 1 August 1985.

A resume of applicant’s APRs subsequent to his promotion to  technical
sergeant follows:

     PERIOD CLOSING    OVERALL EVALUATION

       14 Feb 79 9
       14 Feb 80 9 (w/LOE)
       14 Feb 81 9
        8 Dec 81 9 (w/LOE)
       31 May 82 9
       14 Dec 82 8
       24 May 83 9
       24 May 84 9
       24 May 85 8
       31 Dec 85 9
        9 Sep 86 9
        9 Sep 87 9
       28 Mar 88 9
       25 Sep 88 9
   *   27 Apr 89 6 (Referral)

* Contested report.

AFPC/DPSFC stated that the applicant  had  59  days  of  leave  as  of
1 October 1989, earned 27.5 days as of 31 August 1990, and used 4 days
during the Fiscal Year (FY).  He had previously sold 42.5 days  on  15
December 1977.  Therefore, when he  retired  on  1 September  1990  he
received payment for 17.5 days and forfeited 55 days of leave.   Under
Title 37 USC 501(f) payment for accrued leave cannot exceed 60 days.

Information  provided  by  AFPC/DPPPWB,  Enlisted  Promotion   Branch,
reflects that based on applicant’s date of rank to master sergeant  of
1 August 1985, he  was  considered  for  promotion  to  senior  master
sergeant for three promotion cycles, 89S8 (promotions effective Apr 88-
Mar  89),  90S8  (promotions  effective  Apr  89-Mar  90),  and   91S8
(promotions effective Apr 90-Mar  91),  prior  to  his  retirement  on
1 September 1990.  For the 89S8  cycle  his  board  score  was  285.00
(board scores range from a low of 270.00  to  a  maximum  of  450.00),
total score was 522.30, and the score required for  selection  in  his
AFSC was 709.70.  For the 90S8 cycle his board score was 307.50, total
score was 552.75, and the score required for selection in his AFSC was
680.98.  For the 91S8  cycle,  the  last  cycle  considered  prior  to
retirement, he was found Not Fully Qualified (NFQ)  for  promotion  by
the Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt) Evaluation Board that  convened  on
21 Feb 90.

On 18 June  1990,  applicant  requested  voluntary  retirement  to  be
effective 1 September 1990.  On 31 August 1990, he was  relieved  from
active duty and retired effective 1 September 1990, in  the  grade  of
master sergeant.  At the time of his retirement, he was credited  with
24 years, 1 month, and 26 days of active service for retirement.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Commanders’ Programs Branch,  AFPC/DPSFC,  recommended  denial  of
applicant’s request for compensation for accrued leave forfeited  upon
retirement.  By law, payment for accrued leave cannot exceed 60  days.
Applicant received payment for 42.5 days of leave on 15 December 1977.
 Therefore, he received payment for 17.5 days on  31 August  1990  (at
retirement) and forfeited 55 days.  (Exhibit C)

The USAF  Classification  Branch,  AFPC/DPPAC,  stated  applicant  has
provided no justification to reverse the withdrawal of AFSC 74270-Open
Mess Management Supervisor.  The withdrawal of the AFSC was  based  on
an exception to policy and approved by HQ USAFE.  These  actions  were
appropriate according to policy and procedures in effect at that time.
 Furthermore, IAW a congressional mandate, effective 31 October  1992,
the AFSC applicant performed in prior to his retirement  was  deleted.
Based on the length of time applicant has been out of  the  Air  Force
and not performing in an AFSC, there is no  classification  action  to
take at this time.  If the decision  of  the  Board  is  to  reinstate
applicant to  active  status,  appropriate  classification  action  to
classify him will be initiated.  (Exhibit D)

The Enlisted  Promotion  Branch,  AFPC/DPPWB,  recommended  denial  of
applicant’s request for promotion to  chief  master  sergeant.   DPPWB
stated the applicant was not selected for promotion to  senior  master
sergeant or chief master sergeant prior  to  retirement.   They  noted
that  on  19  May  1989,  the  applicant  was  relieved  of  duty   as
Consolidated Open Mess  (COM)  Manager  by  the  group  commander  for
failure to satisfactorily carry out his duties as  a  Senior  NCO  and
therefore did not successfully perform his duties as club manager.  He
received a referral APR  closing  27  April  1989.   In  addition,  he
received numerous letters of counseling, a  letter  of  reprimand  for
substandard  duty  performance,  establishment   of   an   Unfavorable
Information File (UIF) and placement on the Control Roster which is an
automatic ineligible for promotion condition in accordance with AFR 39-
29,  Table  2,  Rule  H,  the  applicable  directive  at   the   time.
Apparently, the fact that he had been placed on the Control Roster was
not updated by his servicing Military Personnel Flight (MPF) as he was
considered and found Not Fully Qualified for  promotion  by  the  91S8
Evaluation Board on 21 Feb 90.  The fact the applicant had a  referral
APR on top when his record met the 91S8 evaluation board, coupled with
his already noncompetitive record, was obviously  the  reason  he  was
found not fully qualified for promotion  to  senior  master  sergeant.
The referral APR was not a part of his record when it met the 89S8 and
90S8 evaluation boards.  (Exhibit E)

The  BCMR  and  SSB  Section,  AFPC/DPPPAB,  recommended   denial   of
applicant’s request to  upgrade  the  rating  on  the  contested  APR.
DPPPAB stated, in part, that the applicant has failed to  provide  any
information/support from the rating chain on the contested report.  He
filed an IG complaint at his former base and included a  copy  of  the
Complaint Clarification, and Summary of  Inquiry  Findings.   However,
the findings of that report do not relate to the  contested  reporting
period.  It appears the report was accomplished in  direct  accordance
with applicable regulations.

Noting applicant’s belief that his raters  at  his  former  base  gave
damaging information to his rating chain at his  overseas  base  which
caused them to doubt his duty performance from the moment  he  arrived
on station, DPPPAB pointed out that the Summary  of  Inquiry  Findings
pertaining to the applicant’s allegation of discrimination at      AFB
was not substantiated.  More importantly, they determined he  was  not
maliciously placed under the supervision of a person junior  in  grade
to him.  Rather, he was told he did  not  possess  the  experience  to
manage a club of that size with its problems.

The applicant has not provided any evidence from the rating  chain  to
prove the EPR did not accurately portray  his  duty  performance.   He
arrived on station in December 1988.  On 29 January 1989,  after  only
six weeks in the country, his rater gave him a  letter  of  counseling
for acting as manager in an official capacity while  off-duty,  drunk;
for not fostering morale between  the  club  staff;  for  not  meeting
customer demands; for inappropriately using a government vehicle to do
his laundry, take his child to the clinic, and haul water between  his
off-base residence and base; for his verbal abuse of  a  volunteer  at
the Officer’s Wives Club thrift shop; for lack of attention to  detail
at official functions in the club held by the Red  Cross,  JUNCO,  OWC
and first sergeants’ functions; and for  his  absence  from  the  club
after  1700.   He  was  also  counseled  because  his  dependent  wife
intervened in matters that should have been handled  by  the  military
member.  The applicant also received a letter of  reprimand  dated  22
May  1989  from  his  commander  documenting  his   substandard   duty
performance  and  failure  to  meet  senior  noncommissioned   officer
responsibilities.   The  applicant  also  included  a  memorandum  for
record,  dated  23  May  1989,  indicating  the  COM  had  significant
financial losses in Feb - Apr 89.

In regard to the applicant’s contention that the  contested  EPR  does
not cover the entire period of  supervision,  DPPPAB  noted  that  the
applicant has failed to include any official  documentation  from  his
rating chain or unit orderly room to prove the number of days  on  the
EPR is erroneous.

The complete DPPPAB evaluation is at Exhibit F.

The  Retirements  Branch,   AFPC/DPPRR,   found   no   injustices   or
irregularities in the retirement process  and  recommended  denial  of
applicant’s request for  retirement  in  the  grade  of  chief  master
sergeant with 30 years of service.  According to  the  personnel  data
system  (PDS),  applicant  declined  an  assignment  and  applied  for
retirement under the 7-day options program.  Unfortunately,  there  is
no documentation on file in the master personnel records  to  indicate
the date or location of the assignment.

Applicant submitted an AF Form 1160 (Military Retirement Action) dated
18 June  1990,  requesting  an  effective  date   of   retirement   of
1 September 1990.  Section III, Items 13c, on the AF Form 1160 was not
completed by the CBPO to reflect applicant was applying for retirement
under the 7-day option program.  However, the remarks section  of  the
AF Fm 1160 states, “This is our  3rd  AF  Form  1160  on  member.   He
refused  to  sign  the  one  accomplished  14  Jun  90  and  has   now
reconsidered.”  It is unclear what the problem was  and  there  is  no
documentation on file in the  master  records  to  clarify  the  above
statement.

The applicant’s retirement was not based on high year of tenure (HYT).
 His HYT was Jul 91 in accordance with  the  HYT  restructure  message
that was released 14 May 90.  In accordance  with  the  provisions  of
law, the applicant was  correctly  retired  in  the  grade  of  master
sergeant, which was the grade he held on the date of  his  retirement.
There are no provisions of law that would allow an enlisted member  to
retire in a grade other than that in which serving on his last day  of
active duty.  There are no provisions of law nor  does  DPPRR  support
extending the applicant’s retirement date out to  the  30-year  point,
which would include receiving pay based on additional unserved  active
service.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit G.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded  to  the  applicant
and his counsel on 5 February 1999.  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.  We took notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case.
However, we agree with the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their  rationale  as
the basis for our conclusion that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the
victim of an  error  or  injustice.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  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   issues   involved.
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 18 January 2000, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
      Mr. Gregory W. DenHerder, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Oct 97, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFC, dated 14 Jul 98, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAC, dated 17 Sep 98.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 23 Sep 98, w/atch.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 16 Oct 98.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRR, dated 13 Jan 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 5 Feb 99.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair