RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-01685
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show he was promoted to and retired in the
grade of master sergeant (E-7).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He filed an  Equal  Opportunity  (EO)  complaint  based  on  his  non-
promotion and because he was the only  member  of  his  unit  who  was
supervised by someone subordinate in rank.

Initially, the superintendent advised him that he would be promoted if
he successfully completed the NCO Academy Correspondence  Course.   He
completed the course and had 24 months  time  in  grade,  which  fully
qualifies a member for promotion.  After he successfully completed the
course, the commander and superintendent advised him that he would not
be promoted based on inferior job performance.

In a sworn statement, the superintendent admitted that he did not have
a problem promoting him on the unit manning document (UMD).   He  also
explained that he (applicant) did not participate in any exercises  or
home station security other than Desert Storm, which was  untrue.   He
volunteered for  and  performed  home  station  security  on  multiple
occasions, including Presidential Security Support.  Additionally,  he
was voluntarily deployed in support of Desert Storm for more  than  60
days.  He believes the superintendent felt that his support of  Desert
Storm was inferior to exercises.

The commander and superintendent stated that  his  supervisor  and  he
(applicant) failed to adequately administer the  Information/Personnel
Security  Program.   He  was  denied  promotion  based  on  inadequate
management of  the  same  programs  that  provided  his  supervisor  a
promotion.  The program had  deficiencies  in  all  areas.   He  never
received any disciplinary counselings, admonishments or reprimands.

According to the investigator, the reason for  his  non-promotion  was
because he did not meet the time in grade criteria for promotion.  The
investigator stated that he disqualified himself from promotion on  14
March 1999, by signing AF Form 131, Application for Retirement to  the
Retired Reserve.  He signed the document prior to June 1999,  when  he
would have had 24 months time in grade,  because  the  wing  commander
wanted members  who  were  retiring  or  separating  to  advise  their
respective units of their intentions at the earliest  point.   He  was
not aware that complying with the commander’s wishes would  disqualify
him for promotion.

In June 1999, an indefinite Stop Loss was initiated, which  disallowed
all members from separating  or  retiring.   This  Presidential  Order
negated his application for retirement because it prevented  him  from
separating.  He learned that Stop Loss was discontinued during a  unit
training assembly in July 1999, after he  met  the  24-month  time  in
grade criteria.

The investigator attempted to legitimize his  supervision  by  someone
subordinate in rank by suggesting that they were promoted  to  E-6  on
the same date.  They were promoted to E-5 on the same  date  in  1989;
however, he (applicant) outranked his supervisor because even at  that
time, he had more time in grade and in service.

The superintendent and commander  provided  false  statements  to  the
Equal Opportunity investigator at the Illinois Air National Guard.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letter prepared by the Assistant  Adjutant  General  for  Air  of  the
Illinois Army and Air National Guard.  Accordingly, there is  no  need
to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The Chief, Personnel Operations Branch, ANG/DPFOC, recommended denial.
 The applicant submitted an Application for Transfer  to  the  Retired
Reserve on 14 March 1999, to be effective 2 August 1999.  Members  are
ineligible  for  promotion  if  he  or  she  has  requested  voluntary
retirement or separation.  Furthermore, the applicant did not meet the
requirements for promotion to E-7.  A member must  meet  the  12-month
retainability requirement and be recommended by the  commander  to  be
eligible for  promotion.   A  complete  copy  of  this  evaluation  is
appended at Exhibit C.

The Assistant Adjutant General for Air, HQ ILANG/CCE, stated that  the
request for promotion to  E-7  is  not  valid  and  the  Illinois  Air
National Guard does not support the  claim.   The  Assistant  Adjutant
General points out  the  reasons  the  applicant  was  ineligible  for
promotion; clarifies the allegation that the applicant  was  prevented
from retiring because of  Stop  Loss;  and  explains  the  eligibility
requirements for separation  benefits.   Finally,  he  elucidates  the
applicant’s claim of an unresolved issue of his EO complaint.

The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant asks that the Board review the  totality  of  his  case,
including the inconsistent EO portion, and  provide  an  unbiased  and
just decision.  His complete response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   After  an  exhaustive
review of the documentation submitted in support of the appeal, we are
not  convinced  that  the  applicant  submitted  his  application  for
transfer to the retired Reserve solely on the basis of his  perception
that the commander wanted such applications to  be  submitted  at  the
earliest point.  Since it appears he voluntarily requested retirement,
in  accordance  with  the  governing  instruction,  an  individual  is
ineligible for promotion if he has requested voluntary  retirement  or
separation.  In addition to the above, the applicant did not meet  the
requirements for promotion to E-7 because he failed  to  meet  the  12
months retainability requirement and his commander did  not  recommend
him for promotion.  While the applicant may argue that he  would  have
met the time-in-grade requirement in June 1999, had he  not  submitted
the application in March 1999 for transfer to the retired  Reserve  to
be effective in August  1999,  we  have  seen  no  evidence  that  the
commander would have recommended him for promotion.

4.  With respect to the applicant’s arguments that a Stop Loss program
prevented his retirement in June  1999,  and  that  there  remains  an
unresolved issue related to his EO complaint, the  technical  advisory
opinion provided by the Assistant Adjutant General for Air, HQ  ILANG,
addresses  these  issues  to  our  satisfaction.   In  our  view,  the
applicant  elected  Reserve  Transition  Assistance   Program   (RTAP)
benefits rather than continued  service,  which  would  have  entailed
moving with his  unit  to  Scott AFB,  where  he  would  have  had  an
opportunity for promotion.  Therefore, we agree with their opinion and
recommendation and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for  our
conclusion that no basis  exists  to  recommend  granting  the  relief
sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 13 February 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                 Ms. Carolyn J. Watkins, Member
                 Mr. E. David Hoard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 June 2000, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPFOC, dated 6 November 2000.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ ILANG/CCE, dated 31 Aug 2000, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 Nov 2000.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair