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


IN THE MATTER OF:                            DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00789
                                  INDEX CODE 131.09/131.04/113.04
    XXXXXXXXXXXX                        COUNSEL:  None

    XXXXXXXXXXXX                        HEARING DESIRED:  No

RESUME OF CASE:

The applicant entered active duty on 27  Jun  78  and  was  ultimately
promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) effective and  with
a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Sep 94. At the time the applicant  submitted
his appeal, he was approaching his high-year-tenure (HYT) date because
he was still a TSgt with almost 20 years of service.

In his 18 Mar 99 appeal, the applicant requested that  the  Air  Force
Commendation Medal, 1st Oak Leave Cluster (AFCM 1OLC), he received for
actions on 9 May 88  be  changed  to  the  Airman’s  Medal  (AM),  the
originally recommended award.  He contended the requested AM had  been
downgraded as a result of the original awards and decorations  board’s
hasty and cursory review.

On 30 Sep 99, the Board determined that the applicant’s heroic actions
in May 88 more appropriately warranted the AM.  The applicant had  not
requested supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to master
sergeant (MSgt) and, by the time  his  case  was  considered,  he  had
retired on 1 Jul 99 in the grade of TSgt with 21 years and 4  days  of
active service.

A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit E.

On 9 Feb 00, the applicant  submitted  an  addendum  to  his  original
appeal. He asked that, in view of the Board’s upgrading the AFCM  1OLC
to the AM, he be given supplemental  promotion  consideration  to  the
grades of TSgt  [for  a  possibly  earlier  DOR]  and  MSgt.  He  also
requested that, if promoted to the higher grade, he be given a  waiver
of his Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) to remain retired in  the
higher grade. He included his original DD Form 149  package  with  his
addendum.

Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit F.

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The Chief, Inquiries/BCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, advised that the AM
is worth 5 points towards promotion compared to the AFCM’s  3  points.
If the Board approves the AM be included in the  applicant’s  previous
promotion considerations, then:

      ---Beginning with cycle 91A6, the applicant would not  become  a
selectee for TSgt until cycle 93A6. This would  give  him  a  DOR  and
effective date for TSgt of 1 Nov 92, rather than his current DOR of  1
Sep 94.

      ---Beginning with cycle 95E7, he would not become a selectee for
MSgt until cycle 98E7, with a DOR and effective date for MSgt of 1 Nov
98.

The Chief adds that the applicant is  not  automatically  entitled  to
supplemental promotion consideration for  previous  cycles  since  the
upgrade of the decoration [for actions that occurred in  May  88]  was
not approved until Nov 99 by the Board. The  applicant  would  not  be
entitled to retroactive promotion unless the  Board  directs  it.  The
Chief makes no recommendation and defers to  HQ  AFPC/DPPRR  regarding
the ADSC waiver.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit G.

The Special Programs Section, HQ AFPC/DPPRRP, agrees that an error did
occur in the applicant’s records insofar as the award of  the  AM  but
promoting him depends on the Board’s decision as  to  whether  the  AM
should   be   included   in   the   applicant’s   previous   promotion
considerations to TSgt and  MSgt.  If  the  Board  grants  the  relief
sought, the memorandum should direct that the two-year ADSC be waived.
The applicant’s retirement date would remain 1 Jul 99 and the grade at
time of retirement would change from TSgt to MSgt.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant provided a copy of the original DÉCOR-6, dated 5 Dec 88,
which recommended him for the AM.   Therefore,  if  it  had  not  been
erroneously downgraded, the AM would have been counted  for  promotion
points in the pertinent cycles.  He recognizes  the  need  for  policy
regarding complex situations and decisions; however, he  believes  his
situation is unique and requests favorable consideration.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit J.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  Based on an  earlier  Board
action, the AFCM 1OLC was upgraded to the originally  recommended  AM.
Had the award not been downgraded to begin with, in the normal  course
of events the AM would have been included for promotion  consideration
to TSgt beginning in cycle 91A6 and to MSgt beginning in  cycle  95E7.
The AM, worth five points, would have increased the applicant’s scores
so that he would have been an earlier selectee for TSgt in cycle 93A6,
and ultimately a selectee for MSgt in cycle 98E7.  Since  it  is  true
that the applicant would have attained the rank of MSgt had the  award
not been erroneously downgraded, we believe it should be included  for
promotion consideration and the applicant be promoted to TSgt and MSgt
with the appropriate effective dates.   While  the  applicant  was  on
active duty when he first submitted his appeal, he had retired for HYT
by the time his case was considered and finalized. We assume that  had
the error not occurred and he had been promoted to MSgt, the applicant
would have continued  his  career  and  fulfilled  the  two-year  ADSC
incurred as a result of the promotion. A majority of the  Board  notes
that, with a 1 Nov 98 DOR to MSgt and a 1 Jul 99 retirement date,  the
applicant would have served nearly eight months of his two-year  ADSC.
Rather than  disrupt  him  and  his  family  by  forcing  him  out  of
retirement at this point in time to complete approximately four months
of ADSC, the majority of the Board recommends the ADSC be  waived  and
the applicant be allowed to retire in the grade of MSgt.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

      a.  He was promoted to the grade of TSgt, effective and  with  a
date of rank (DOR) of 1 Nov 92.

      b.  He was promoted to the grade of MSgt, effective and  with  a
DOR of 1 Nov 98 and any service commitment  he  incurred  due  to  his
promotion was waived by competent authority.

      c.  On 1 Jul 99, he was retired for length  of  service  in  the
grade of MSgt.

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 12 May and 7 June 2000, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
            Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
            Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member

A majority of the Board voted to correct the records, as  recommended.
Mr. Wheeler voted to include the AM for consideration in the TSgt  and
MSgt promotion cycles with subsequent promotion. However, Mr.  Wheeler
believed the applicant should be required to return to active duty  if
he wanted to retire in the grade of MSgt and voted to deny waiving the
ADSC. Mr. Wheeler did not  wish  to  submit  a  Minority  Report.  The
following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit E.  Record of Proceedings, dated 3 Nov 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant's Letter, dated 9 Feb 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 18 Feb 00.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 3 Apr 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 24 Apr 00.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, 30 Apr 00, w/atch.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR 99-00789




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to XXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that:

           a.  He was promoted to the grade  of  TSgt,  effective  and
with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Nov 92.

           b.  He was promoted to the grade  of  MSgt,  effective  and
with a DOR of 1 Nov 98 and any service commitment he incurred  due  to
his promotion was waived by competent authority.

           c.  On 1 Jul 99, he was retired for length of service in
the grade of MSgt.




                       JOE G. LINEBERGER
                       Director
                       Air Force Review Boards Agency