RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-00846
            INDEX CODE:  131.09

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her rank be changed from staff sergeant (E-5) to master  sergeant  (E-
7).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was unjustly deprived of her deserved rank as a result of reprisal
for  filing  a  complaint  with  the  Equal   Employment   Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) for racial and sexual discrimination, which occurred
while she was serving in an Air Reserve Technician (ART) position.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement
and numerous other documents associated with the matter under review.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Available documentation indicated that the applicant enlisted  in  the
Air Force Reserve on 2 Dec 88 in the grade of airman for a  period  of
six years.  Prior to  the  matter  under  review,  the  applicant  was
progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant.

A letter from the Physical  Disability  Division,  dated  18  Aug  99,
indicated that an Informal Evaluation Board (IPEB) found the applicant
unfit to perform the duties of her  office,  grade,  rank,  or  rating
based on a diagnosis of recurrent major depression  under  psychiatric
care.

An EEOC case decision, dated 14 Sep 99, indicates that,  on  9 Dec 96,
the applicant was discharged  from  her  agency  position  during  her
probationary period on the  grounds  of  unprofessional  conduct.   On
3 Nov 98, the applicant filed a formal complaint,  alleging  that  she
was the victim of unlawful employment discrimination on the  bases  of
race, color, sex, age, and reprisal.  On 3 Jun 99, the agency issued a
final decision.  The agency dismissed all the  allegations  raised  by
the applicant’s complaint for failure to initiate contact with an  EEO
Counselor  in  a  timely  fashion.   The  applicant  appealed  but   a
determination was made that the applicant’s contact with  her  initial
EEO Counselor was untimely regarding the matters raised in her  formal
complaint (Exhibit C).

By letter, dated 19 Nov 99, the applicant was notified that separation
action had been initiated to discharge her from the Air Force  Reserve
with an honorable discharge.  The applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of
the notification on 13 Dec 99.

On 11 Jan 00, the discharge authority directed that the  applicant  be
separated from the Air Force Reserve with an honorable  discharge  for
physical disqualification.

Applicant was relieved from her assignment  and  honorably  discharged
from the Air Force Reserve effective 26 Jan 00.  She was credited with
10 years of satisfactory federal service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Military Personnel Division, AFRC/DPM, reviewed  this  application
and recommended denial.  DPM stated that, in accordance with  AFI  36-
2502, Table 4.2, in order for a member to be promoted to the grade  of
technical sergeant (TSgt), an individual must have a 7-skill level, 18
months  time  in  grade  (TIG),  5  years  of  satisfactory   service,
recommended by their supervisor,  and  approved  by  their  commander.
According to DPM, the applicant did not possess the necessary  7-skill
level, nor did her commander recommend her for promotion to the  grade
of TSgt, subsequently she was also ineligible  for  promotion  to  the
grade of MSgt.  However, if  the  decision  is  to  grant  the  relief
sought, the records should be corrected to show promotion to the grade
of TSgt and MSgt.  DPM indicated that dates of rank (DORs)  could  not
be determined by their office as the applicant did not complete all of
the required prerequisites to be eligible for  promotion.   Therefore,
the Board would have to direct the appropriate dates to be used.

A complete copy of the DPM evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  12
Oct 00 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s staff request,  the  Directorate  of  Military
Law, AFRC/JAJM, reviewed  this  application  and  recommended  denial.
According to JAJM, the file contained no evidence that  the  applicant
ever served in a grade higher than staff sergeant,  or  that  she  had
been selected for promotion to any higher grade.

JAJM indicated that the file contained voluminous  documentation  that
apparently was used in support of allegations of discrimination toward
the applicant’s civilian part of the ART position she held from Dec 95
to Dec 96.  Whatever evidentiary value those documents may have had in
connection with  administrative  litigation  concerning  her  civilian
position, they demonstrated no error or  injustices  in  her  military
record.

A complete copy of the JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a  response  and
additional documentary evidence which are attached at Exhibit H.

Applicant provided a subsequent response which is attached at  Exhibit
I.

Applicant provided an additional response which is attached at Exhibit
J.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  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  (OPRs)  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 Apr 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Panel Chair
      Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member
      Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Mar 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Decision,
                dated 14 Sep 99.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFRC/DPM, dated 4 Oct 00.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Oct 00.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFRC/JAM, dated 27 Feb 01.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Mar 01.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, applicant, dated 23 Mar 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, applicant, dated 26 Mar 01.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, applicant, dated 9 Apr 01.




                                   PATRICK R. WHEELER
                                   Panel Chair