RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-01075
                   INDEX CODE 110.03  131.03  100.06
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated to active duty with back pay  and  allowances,  minus
collected retirement pay; given a new date of separation (DOS)  of  31
Jan  05  or  two  years  from  date  of  reinstatement;  afforded  the
opportunity to test for promotion to senior  master  sergeant  (SMSgt)
for cycle  03E8,  or  immediate  promotion;  and  assigned  to  a  new
permanent duty station.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The  unfair  actions  by  his  supervisor,  first  sergeant,  squadron
commander  and  operations  group  commander  denied  him   enlistment
extension  and  forced  him  to  retire.  He  was  informed  that  his
leadership style was outdated  and  caused  discontentment  among  the
airmen. He was removed  from  his  position.  Abuse  of  discretionary
authority denied him an extension of enlistment. He  believes  he  was
not given a chance to change because no change he made would have been
acceptable. He was not allowed to hear  or  read  any  statements  his
subordinates may have made. The total absence  of  either  written  or
verbal documentation or verification prior to  10  Jan  03  makes  his
supervisor’s comments suspect.

The applicant’s complete submission, including personal statement,  19
attachments, and a supplemental statement, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 Jan 79  and  was
ultimately promoted to master sergeant (MSgt). During  the  period  in
question,  the  applicant  was  the  Aircrew   Life   Support   Flight
superintendent with the XX Operations Support Squadron at  Altus  AFB,
OK. His supervisor/rater was  the  flight  commander;  the  additional
rater was the squadron commander.

His Senior Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) beginning  with  11 Jun
96 are all “firewalled” and reflect the following ratings:

                       PERIOD ENDING    OVERALL EVALUATION
                        10 Jun 97       5
                        10 Jun 98       5
                        10 Jun 99       5
                        10 Mar 00       5
                        15 Feb 01       5
                        15 Feb 02       5
                         30  Jan  03         Supplemental   Evaluation
Sheet (SES)
                             (outstanding performance)

The applicant received the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) for  the  9
Aug 96 to 30 Sep 99 timeframe on 18 Oct 99, and the MSM, 1st Oak  Leaf
Cluster (1OLC,) for the 24 Jun 00 to 31 Jan 03 timeframe on 21 Nov 02.
The squadron commander also nominated him in 2000 and 2001 for Aircrew
Life Support Outstanding Senior NCO of  the  Year  for  both  the  Air
Education and Training Command and HQ Air Force levels.

On 5 Feb 02, the applicant requested retirement effective  1  Feb  03,
which was his High Year of Tenure (HYT) of 24 years for his grade. His
request was approved by the squadron commander  on  8 Feb  02  and  by
Special Order AC-000443 on 9 Oct 02.

However, HQ AFPC/DPP message dated 27 Dec 02  provided  implementation
instructions extending the HYT  for  senior  airmen  (SRA),  technical
sergeant (TSgt), MSgt, and senior master  sergeant  (SMSgt)  with  HYT
dates on or after 1 Jan 03. The new HYT for MSgt was now 26 years. The
HYT for SMSgt was now 28 years.

Sometime around 6 Jan 03, the applicant apparently requested to remain
on active duty in accordance with the new HYT guidelines.

On 10 Jan 02  [sic],  the  flight  commander  did  not  recommend  the
applicant for reenlistment on  AF  Form  418,  Selective  Reenlistment
Program Consideration. The flight  commander  stated  the  applicant’s
dictatorial, abrasive, confrontational and tactless  leadership  style
resulted in poor morale throughout the flight.  The  flight  commander
indicated he recommended the applicant  for  the  MSM  and  wrote  the
favorable SES at the  applicant’s  request  and  to  facilitate  post-
service employment. The commander did not address a complaint  against
the applicant in May 02 for improper comments to a subordinate,  which
was largely resolved based on his  impending  retirement.  He  claimed
three other subordinates threatened not to reenlist if  the  applicant
returned.

On 10 Jan  03,  the  squadron  commander  concurred  with  the  flight
commander,  indicating  the  applicant  was  unwilling  to  adapt  his
leadership style. He claimed this resulted in  an  “unfortunate  minor
indiscretion” which negatively impacted morale.

The applicant signed the AF Form 418 on 10 Jan 03 and, on 14  Jan  03,
also indicated he intended to appeal.  AFI  36-2606  states  that  the
appeal authority for individuals like the applicant with more than  20
years of service would be his group commander.

On 16 Jan  03,  the  applicant  submitted  his  appeal  to  the  group
commander. The flight commander rebutted the applicant’s appeal on  27
Jan 03. The applicant provided a second statement on 30 Jan 03.

On 30 Jan 03, the applicant also requested his approved retirement  be
withdrawn, which was approved by Special Order AC-005464 on 31 Jan 03.

According to HQ AFPC/DPPRRP (Exhibit E), the applicant was  granted  a
30-day extension to his HYT pending the results of his appeal  of  his
denied reenlistment. However, the group commander did not receive  the
appeal package until 14 Feb 03. In the meantime, on  11  Feb  03,  the
applicant again requested retirement effective 1 Mar 03, his  extended
HYT. His request was approved by Special Order AC-006438 on 19 Feb 03.


The applicant retired on 1 Mar 03 in the grade of MSgt after 24 years,
1 month and 1 day of active service.

Based on HQ AFPC/DPPRRP’s advisory (Exhibit E), the group  commander’s
Military Personnel Flight (MPF)  contacted  the  HQ  AFPC  retirements
section to advise that the group commander was going to  complete  the
AF Form 418. HQ AFPC/DPPRRP advised the MPF that the completion of  AF
Form 418 was overtaken by the applicant’s 1 Mar 03 retirement.

On 9 Apr 03, the group commander indicated on the AF Form 418 that the
appeal did not reach his office until 14 Feb 03. Upon hearing  of  the
applicant’s approved retirement, he returned the  appeal  to  the  MPF
without action. Per direction of the AFPC retirements section, he  was
now approving the applicant’s appeal as he would have done on  14  Feb
03 if the applicant had not elected to retire.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advises the  applicant  was  ineligible  for  promotion
consideration for cycle 03E8 because he was denied reenlistment. To be
eligible for promotion consideration for cycle 03E8, members must have
a DOS or retirement date of 1 Apr 03 or later. They recommend  against
direct promotion. If the applicant is   reinstated,  recommend  he  be
supplementally considered for promotion  for  cycle  03E8,  if  he  is
otherwise eligible and recommended by his commander.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE notes that if the applicant had not  retired,  he  would
have been selected for  reenlistment  by  the  appeal  authority.  The
applicant’s request should be approved.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPRRP makes no recommendation since there were no  errors  or
injustices, but would impose  no  objection  to  the  applicant  being
reinstated.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 1 Aug 03 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of
this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence  of  error  or  injustice  to  warrant  reinstating  the
applicant and offering him supplemental promotion consideration to the
grade of SMSgt. After carefully weighing all the  available  evidence,
we are persuaded that the denial of reenlistment  by  the  flight  and
squadron commanders was questionable at best  and  unsubstantiated  at
worst. Most importantly, the group commander approved the  applicant’s
reenlistment appeal. Unfortunately, the appeal package did  not  reach
the group commander until after the applicant was required  to  retire
because of his HYT and unjust reenlistment ineligibility. We therefore
recommend he be reinstated and allowed to reenlist for a period of two
years,  as  he  requested,   and   afforded   supplemental   promotion
consideration, rather than direct promotion, to  the  grade  of  SMSgt
beginning with cycle 03E8.

4.    The applicant’s assignment request  was  noted.   However,  when
favorable  consideration  of  an  appeal  by  the  Board  restores  an
applicant to active duty status, authorities at HQ AFPC  complete  all
assignment actions in  accordance  with  long-established  procedures.
These authorities are in the best position to assess the needs of  the
service and the qualifications of  the  individual  concerned.   While
attempts may be made to accommodate the desires  of  the  member,  the
needs of the service are of paramount consideration in  determinations
of this nature. Therefore,  this  portion  of  applicant’s  appeal  is
denied.

5.    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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to the APPLICANT, be  corrected  to  show  that  he  was  not
released from the Regular Air Force on 28 February  2003  and  retired
for length of service on 1 March 2003 in the grade of master sergeant,
but on that date he reenlisted for a  period  of  two  years  and  was
ordered permanent change of station to his home  of  record  (home  of
selection) pending further orders.

It  is  further  recommended  that  he  be   provided   supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of senior  master  sergeant
for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 03E8.

If AFPC discovers  any  adverse  factors  during  or  subsequent  to
supplemental  consideration  that  are  separate  and   apart,   and
unrelated to the issues involved in  this  application,  that  would
have rendered the individual  ineligible  for  the  promotion,  such
information will be documented and presented  to  the  board  for  a
final  determination  on  the  individual's  qualification  for  the
promotion.

If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion  the
records shall be corrected to show  that  he  was  promoted  to  the
higher grade on the date of rank  established  by  the  supplemental
promotion and that he  is  entitled  to  all  pay,  allowances,  and
benefits of such grade as of that date.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 10 September 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member
                 Ms. Martha Maust, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-01075 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Mar 03, and Supplemental
                  Statement dated 23 Apr 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 8 Apr 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 18 Jul 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 24 Jul 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Aug 03.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair




AFBCMR BC-2003-01075


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    , be corrected to show that that he was not
released from the Regular Air Force on 28 February 2003 and retired
for length of service on 1 March 2003 in the grade of master sergeant,
but on that date he reenlisted for a period of two years and was
ordered permanent change of station to his home of record (home of
selection) pending further orders.

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for
all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 03E8.

      If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated
to the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered
the individual ineligible for the promotion, such information will be
documented and presented to the board for a final determination on the
individual's qualification for the promotion.

      If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection
for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion
the records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the
higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental
promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits
of such grade as of that date.





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency