RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2000-02569
            INDEX CODE:  131.09
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be advanced on the Retired List to the grade of master sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During his twenty-year career he received  outstanding  ratings  before  and
after his demotion.  The final  accountability  for  his  Air  Force  career
should reflect the overall outstanding manner for  which  he  supported  and
defended his country.  Restoration of his  rank  to  master  sergeant  would
fairly and accurately characterize his career.

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
recommendation letters, an Airman Performance Report, an  extract  from  AFI
36-3203, his promotion order, his retirement order, and  his  DD  Form  214.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

Applicant submitted his application in September 2000 and requested to  have
it withdrawn on 7 December 2000. On 7 May 2004  he  requested  his  case  be
reopened.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  17
Nov 70.  He was progressively promoted to  the  grade  of  master  sergeant,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Sep 86.

He received Article 15 punishment on 15 Jun 87 for dereliction  of  duty  in
that he failed to give  an  accurate  measurement  of  his  weight  and  was
reduced  to  the  grade  of  technical  sergeant.   On  19 Jul  88,  he  was
administratively demoted to the grade  of  staff  sergeant  for  failure  to
maintain weight within the Air Force standards.  On 9 Mar  90,  he  received
an Article 15  punishment  with  a  suspended  reduction  to  the  grade  of
sergeant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.

On 1 Dec 90, he retired  for  years  of  service,  in  the  grade  of  staff
sergeant.  He served 20 years and 14 days on active duty.   On  22  Mar  90,
the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council  (SAF/PC)  determined  that
the applicant served satisfactorily in the grade of technical  sergeant  and
that he would be advanced to that grade on the Retired  List  upon  reaching
30 years of total service (17 Nov 00).  SAF/PC determined that  he  did  not
serve satisfactorily in the grade of master sergeant and that he  would  not
be advanced to that grade.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRRP recommends denial.  DPPRRP states  the  law,  which  allows  for
advancement of enlisted members when their active duty plus service  on  the
retired list totals 30  years  is  very  specific  in  its  application  and
intent.  SAF/PC made the determination that he did not serve  satisfactorily
in the grade of master sergeant but did serve satisfactorily  in  the  grade
of technical sergeant.  There are no other  provisions  of  law  that  would
allow for  advancement  to  a  grade  higher  than  the  highest  grade  the
Secretary determined was satisfactorily held.  The DPPRRP evaluation  is  at
Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB  recommends  the  application  be  denied   as   untimely.    If
considered on its merit, DPPPWB recommends denial.   The  DPPPWB  evaluation
is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states he was unaware of the three-year limitation.  He  chose  to
serve his country while others chose to be draft dodgers, which  should  say
what kind of American he is.  Since  his  retirement  he  has  received  his
Associates, Bachelor's, and Master's degrees.  He has paid  dearly  for  his
mistake.   He  provided  a  letter  from  the  commander  who  imposed   the
nonjudicial punishment who stated his service  was  more  than  satisfactory
for more than six months.  His complete response,  with  attachment,  is  at
Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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 that would warrant  corrective  action.   We
find no evidence of error in this case, and after thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence of record and the documentation provided in support of his  appeal,
we do not believe he has been the victim of an injustice.  The  Board  notes
that  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Council  reviewed  the
applicant's case and determined that he  did  serve  satisfactorily  in  the
grade of technical sergeant and that he has been  advanced  to  that  grade;
and SAFPC determined that he did not serve satisfactorily in  the  grade  of
master sergeant and should not be advanced to that grade.  After a  thorough
review of the evidence  of  record,  we  agree  with  their  determinations.
Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the  Air  Force
offices of primary responsibility and adopt their  rationale  as  the  basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim  of  an  error
or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive evidence  to  the  contrary,  we
find no basis upon which to favorably consider 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-2004-
02569 in Executive Session on 27 Jul 04, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
      Mrs. Barbara R. Murray, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Sep 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 1 Nov 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 Nov 00.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 Nov 00.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Dec 00.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 14 Dec 00.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 May 04.




                                   CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
                                   Panel Chair