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


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1996-03642
            INDEX CODE:  131.09

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be allowed to retire in the Reserve grade of chief master sergeant,
the highest grade he held.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 6 May 97, the Air Force Board for Correction  of  Military  Records
(AFBCMR) considered  and  denied  an  application  pertaining  to  the
applicant, in which he requested that he be reinstated to the  Reserve
grade of chief master sergeant, with a date  of  rank  of  1  Mar  96.
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit  F
(with Exhibits A through E).

On  5  May  03,  the  applicant  requested  reconsideration   of   the
application, indicating that he firmly believes  that  the  Air  Force
Reserve treated him  unfairly.   After  his  stripe  was  taken  away,
instead of quitting,  he  continued  to  serve  his  country  and  has
received several awards.  He has served  his  country  faithfully  for
almost 33 years and will be forced to retire in 2004 due to  his  high
year of tenure (HYT).  All he is asking for is that he be given credit
for the seven and a half months he served in the grade of chief master
sergeant and be allowed to retire at the highest grade he held.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit G.

Between 10 Jun 96 and 14 Jun 96, a Staff Assistance  Visit  (SAV)  was
conducted to gather information concerning promotions  in  conjunction
with the base closure of Bergstrom Air Reserve Station (ARS), Texas.

A complete copy of the SAV Report is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAF/JAA recommended denial indicating that if a mistake was  made,
it was made by the 924th Fighter Wing (924 FW) in its  calculation  of
personnel authorized and assigned.  At the time  of  the  calculation,
there were  two  other  chief  master  sergeants  occupying  the  same
position (Senior Enlisted Advisor) and thus, no unit vacancy  existed.
In addition, in accordance with AFR 39-29, the applicant had  to  meet
all eligibility requirements on the last day of the month (29 Feb  96)
preceding promotion.  Simply stated, on that day, the applicant was an
Air Reserve Technician (ART), the Standard Form (SF) 50-B was  not  in
error, and the SF 50-B is not a military record within the purview  of
the Board to correct reflecting otherwise.  While  the  applicant  may
perceive the rescission of his promotion as  an  injustice  and  while
certainly regrettable, again the fact remains it was improperly made.

In HQ USAF/JAA's opinion, the applicant has failed to demonstrate  the
existence of any newly  discovered  relevant  evidence  that  was  not
available   when   his   application   was   originally    considered.
Alternatively, the applicant has failed to demonstrate  the  existence
of  any  error  or  present  facts  and  circumstances  supporting  an
injustice.

A complete copy of the HQ USAF/JAA evaluation is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant provided a response indicating, in part, that he knows  that
the purpose of a correction  board  is  to  consider  regulations  and
guidelines.   However,  he  also  feels  that   it   should   be   the
responsibility of the board members to ensure military  personnel  are
treated fairly.   A  member's  record,  length  of  service,  and  his
character should be taken into  account  when  making  decisions.   He
respectfully asks the Board to take these items into consideration and
to grant him what he earned and worked so hard to  accomplish  in  his
career.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice.  In an  earlier  finding,  the  Board
determined  that  there  was  insufficient  evidence  to  warrant  any
corrective action regarding the applicant’s original appeal requesting
that he be reinstated to the grade of chief master sergeant.  His most
recent submission was thoroughly reviewed  and  his  contentions  were
duly  noted.   However,  we  did  not  find  his  assertions  and  his
supporting  documentation  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the
rationale proffered by the HQ USAF/JAA.  Therefore, in the absence  of
sufficient  evidence  that   the   applicant   met   the   eligibility
requirements on the last day of the month preceding promotion  to  the
grade of chief master sergeant, we agree with  the  recommendation  of
the HQ USAF/JAA and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our
decision that the applicant has again failed to sustain his burden  of
establishing that he has suffered either an  error  or  an  injustice.
Accordingly, we conclude that no compelling basis exists to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this appeal.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
1996-03642 in Executive Session on 17 Sep 03, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
      Ms. Patricia Kelly, Member
      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 6 Jun 97, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, applicant, dated 5 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  SAV Report (withdrawn).
    Exhibit I.  Letter, HQ USAF/JAA, dated 25 Jun 03.
    Exhibit J.  Letters, AFBCMR, dated 1 Jul 03.
    Exhibit K.  Letter, applicant, dated 15 Jul 03, w/atchs.




                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair


                   MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                   FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

FROM: SAF/MR

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Application of

      I have carefully reviewed all the circumstances of this case and do
not agree with the decision of the AFBCMR panel to deny the applicant’s
request.

      The applicant, a Reserve SMSgt, was assigned as the Senior Enlisted
Advisor (SEA), 924 FW, and promoted to CMSgt on March 1, 1996, prior to the
unit’s deactivation.  A subsequent commander-directed inquiry determined
his promotion, among others, was improper because his position was occupied
by two other CMSgts and he was also an Air Reserve Technician (ART) on the
promotion effective date, whereas the position was traditionally a
Reservist position.  The applicant’s wing commander indicated that based on
the advice of the Military Personnel Flight (MPF), he believed that moving
the applicant into the SEA position and promoting him was in accord with
existing regulations.  After investigating all the circumstances, the
applicant’s promotion to CMSgt was rescinded on September 30, 1996.  A
subsequent appeal of the demotion was denied by the AFRES/CV.  In denying
the appeal, the AFRES/CV advised he had had their JA and DP determine if
there was any authority to grant applicant the relief sought but was
advised that there was none.

      Applicant appealed to the Board requesting reinstatement of the higher
grade.  He contended he had served for “eight” (sic) months when the
promotion was rescinded.  The Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR)
recommended and, on May 6, 1997, the Board denied his appeal because he did
not meet the regulatory eligibility requirements for promotion to CMSgt at
the time.

      Applicant subsequently requested reconsideration, but downgraded his
request to permission to retire in the higher grade upon reaching his high-
year of tenure (HYT) early next year.  At this time, the Board was advised
that if an active duty airman is erroneously promoted through an honest
mistake and the promotion effective date has passed, the promotion stands.
However, HQ USAF/JAA opines that the long-term impact of an erroneous
active duty enlisted promotion and potential rescission is far greater than
that posed by a comparable erroneous unit vacancy enlisted promotion.  In
their view, to equate the two in terms of long-term military career impact
or potential remedy is simply inaccurate.  Consequently, given the
incongruity of the two enlisted promotion systems, HQ USAF/JAA believes
granting the applicant’s request based on what may, or may not, occur to a
similarly situated active duty member is inappropriate.  I find this
opinion unpersuasive, however, particularly in light of the USAF’s fully
integrated Total Force and our continuing reliance on Reserve forces in
meeting the daily demands of the Global War on Terror.  Furthermore, the HQ
USAF/JAA opinion merely asserts incomparability of the injustice based
solely on the existence of differing selection mechanisms.  No analysis is
provided to illustrate “far greater” impact of an erroneous active
promotion over one in the Reserve component.

      There is no dispute the applicant was not eligible for promotion to
CMSgt on March 1, 1996.  Nor is there any indication he should have known
the promotion was erroneous and failed to bring the error to the attention
of his superiors.  To the contrary, the evidence is convincing he accepted
the promotion to CMSgt in good faith and served with distinction resulting
in his receipt of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) for a portion of that
service.  HQ USAF/JAA’s objection to granting the relief is duly noted.
Nonetheless, I believe that permitting the applicant to serve in the higher
grade and receive the higher pay and allowances for such an extended period
of time and then summarily rescinding his promotion was extremely harsh
and, therefore, unjust.  After seven months the applicant had every right
to expect his promotion to be final and subject to removal only because of
misconduct or failure to find a similar position in the event of
reassignment.  In consideration of these circumstances, including the wide
disparity in erroneous enlisted promotion policies of the Reserves and the
active force, it is my decision that the applicant’s original request for
reinstatement of his grade of CMSgt be approved.  In arriving at my
decision, I am aware that the courts have held that the Secretary and his
boards have an abiding moral sanction to determine, insofar as possible,
the true nature of the alleged injustice and takes steps to grant thorough
and fitting relief.

                                       MICHAEL L. DOMINQUEZ
                                       Assistant Secretary
                                       (Manpower & Reserve Affairs)




AFBCMR BC-1996-03642




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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was promoted
to the Reserve grade of chief master sergeant, effective and with a
date or rank of 1 March 1996.






    JOE G. LINEBERGER

    Director

    Air Force Review Boards Agency