RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01827
            INDEX CODE:  131.09

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant, effective and  with
a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Jul 95, with all back  pay  associated  with
the promotion.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was denied testing for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant
because he was retiring under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority
(TERA) program.

He made the cut-off for the 1995 cycle and was still  on  active  duty
when the results for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant were
announced.

He never signed a declination statement.

He was not in his high year of tenure (HYT) at the time  so  he  could
have canceled his early retirement and stayed on active duty.

Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29 Jun 78 for a  period
of four years in the grade of  airman  basic.   He  entered  his  last
enlistment on 11 May 92 for a period of six  years  in  the  grade  of
staff sergeant.

An AF Form 1160, Military Retirement Actions, indicates  that,  on  12
Aug 94, the applicant requested voluntary retirement, effective 1  Jul
95.

Applicant was relieved from active duty on 30  Jun  95,  and  retired,
effective 1 Jul 95, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-3208  (Temporary
Early Retirement Authority).  He was  credited  with  17 years  and  2
months of total active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommended denial noting that the  applicant  tested  and
was considered for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant during
cycle 95A6.  He would have tested and been considered for promotion to
the grade of technical sergeant during cycle 95E6; however, on 12  Aug
94, he signed and submitted an  AF  Form  1160  requesting  retirement
effective  1 Jul 95.   This  rendered  him  ineligible  for  promotion
consideration  for  cycle  95E6  in  accordance  with   AFI   36-2502.
According to AFPC/DPPPWB, an airman is  ineligible  for  a  particular
cycle when he or she has a mandatory date of  separation  (DOS),  HYT,
has 30 years or more of service, or an approved retirement before  the
first day of the month promotions are incremented in that cycle.   The
applicant retired on 1 Jul 95 and promotions for the 95E6 cycle  began
incrementing on 1 Aug 95.

In AFPC/DPPPWB's view, when the applicant signed the AF Form 1160,  he
acknowledged full understanding that if he retired before 1 Aug 95, he
would be ineligible for promotion consideration, had read the rules in
the applicable directives, and that the form  was  not  to  be  signed
without a complete understanding of its effect on his career.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

According to the applicant, the  advisory  opinion  was  missing  some
sentences; therefore, he had no idea what was completely contained  in
the advisory.  However,  he  did  respond  to  the  advisory  opinion,
indicating that AFI 36-2502 did not cover the TERA program under which
he retired.  Since he retired under the TERA program, he  should  have
been allowed to test or be  denied  testing  under  the  TERA  program
promotion instructions.  Also AFI 36-2502 was approved on 20  Jul  94.
Most regulations back then took about six months to get in  the  hands
of individuals.  This AFI was not on his base until at least Jan 95.

According to the applicant, the TERA program was a one-time effort  to
release mid-level noncommissioned officers, which was not  done  in  a
professional manner.

Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E.

Since it appeared that the applicant did not receive the complete  Air
Force evaluation, a copy of the evaluation was forwarded to  applicant
on 15 Aug 03 for review and response.  As of this  date,  no  response
has been received by this office (Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.   However,  we  do  not   find   the   applicant’s   assertions
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air
Force office of primary responsibility (OPR).  The evidence of  record
indicates the applicant requested and was approved for retirement with
an effective  date  that  was  before  the  first  day  of  the  month
promotions were incremented for the cycle in question.  As  a  result,
he was  rendered  ineligible  for  promotion  consideration  for  that
particular cycle.  In view of the foregoing, and  in  the  absence  of
evidence that he  was  treated  differently  from  similarly  situated
individuals, we agree with the recommendation of  the  OPR  and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our decision that the  applicant  has
failed to sustain his burden of  establishing  that  he  has  suffered
either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, 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 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-
2003-01827 in Executive Session on 23 Sep 03, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 8 Jul 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jul 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 11 Aug 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Aug 03.




                                   JOHN L. ROBUCK
                                   Panel Chair