RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02076

            INDEX CODE:  111.00


            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 13 July
1999 through 31 May 2000, be  removed  from  his  records  and  he  be
provided supplemental promotion consideration to the  grade  of  staff
sergeant (E-5) for the 01E5 promotion cycle.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR was prejudiced by his initial investigation, court-martial and
incarceration, which occurred during the reporting  period.   The  EPR
will affect  future  testing  opportunities,  if  it  remains  in  his
records.  The investigation during his upgrade training,  in  addition
to his court-martial preparation were key factors for his  failure  of
the  end-of-course  test.   His  state  of   mind,   the   significant
interruption in training, and subsequent skill level upgrade prevented
him from testing and possible selection to E-5.   His  supervisor  and
chief enlisted manager obtained an out-of-cycle test date for him, but
this does not address the time he missed testing and possible time  in
grade he could have acquired since then.

In support, the applicant provided copies of his  performance  reports
and copies of documents related to his court-martial.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
senior airman (E-4).  He was considered and selected for promotion  to
the grade of staff sergeant by  a  supplemental  board  for  the  01E5
promotion cycle (promotions effective 1  September  2001  -  1  August
2002).

The applicant’s EPR profile follows:

            PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL EVALUATION

                 12 Jul  98                                   4

                 12 Jul 99                                    5

               * 31 May 00                                    4

*  Contested Report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB stated that when initial promotion selections were made
on 10 July  2001,  the  applicant  was  ineligible  for  consideration
because he had not been upgraded to the required 5-skill level Primary
Air Force Specialty Code (PAFSC) by the promotion  eligibility  cutoff
date (PECD) of 31 March 2001.  A senior airman  must  have  a  5-skill
level PAFSC by the PECD to be eligible for promotion consideration  to
staff sergeant.  Since the applicant did not attain the required skill
level until 1 May 2001, after the 31 March  2001  PECD  for  the  01E5
cycle, he was ineligible for promotion consideration  when  selections
were  made  on  10  July   2001.    Because   of   the   circumstances
(investigation,   court-martial,   confinement)   which   caused    an
interruption in his upgrade training  that  prevented  upgrade  by  31
March 2001, he was granted a PAFSC skill level waiver.  As a result of
this waiver by his commander, he was determined to be eligible for the
01E5 cycle and was administered the required promotion tests in August
2001.  He was considered by supplement board on 7 September 2001,  and
was selected.  His total score was 244.61 and the score  required  for
selection in his AFSC was 241.14.  His promotion sequence number (PSN)
is 9887.5.  Since 2,030 individuals were promoted on 1 September 2001,
the first month of the promotion cycle,  AFPC/DPPPWB  anticipates  the
applicant  will  be  promoted  in  the  December   2001/January   2002
timeframe.  Contrary to the applicant’s belief that he  lost  time-in-
grade that he would have acquired had he been considered  on  10  July
2001, it makes no difference that he was not considered  and  selected
initially for promotion.  He cannot  be  promoted  until  his  PSN  is
incremented, regardless of when he was considered.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP recommended denial,  stating  that  the  EPR  does  not
mention the investigation, court-martial, and incarceration during the
reporting period.  Therefore, the applicant has not substantiated that
the EPR is inaccurate because it was prejudiced by these events.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the evaluations were provided to the applicant on  5 October
2001, for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit E).  As of  this
date, he has not responded.

_________________________________________________________________

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   noted   the
applicant's assertions that the  report  will  affect  future  testing
opportunities and that he could have acquired more time in  grade  had
he not missed testing time  during  his  court-martial  investigation.
However, as  noted  by  the  office  of  primary  responsibility,  the
applicant was selected for promotion to the grade  of  staff  sergeant
with the EPR closing 31 May  2000,  in  his  record.   Therefore,  the
removal of the report would  have  no  impact  on  his  selection  for
promotion.  Moreover, supplemental promotion  consideration  is  moot,
since he was selected during the 01E5 cycle.  The  applicant  received
the same promotion sequence number (PSN) he would have received had he
been initially considered and selected.  Therefore, in the absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  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 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                 Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
                 Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jul 2001, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 10 Sep 2001, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 27 Sep 2001.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 5 Oct 2001.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair