RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00403
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect promotion to the grade  of  master
sergeant effective CY 2004.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received an unsatisfactory Airman Performance Report (APR)  written
by SMSgt D--- B--- due to a grudge MSgt B--- had against him since  he
wrote up discrepancy reports on aircraft for which MSgt  B---  was  in
charge.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement,  two
DD Forms 214, a copy of his retirement order, seven special orders,  a
copy of a personnel action request, a classification action request, a
copy of page 2 of his Airman Military Record, a copy of a certificate,
and a copy of a resume.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15 January 1948  for  a
period of three years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade  of
staff sergeant on 16 November 1950 and the grade of technical sergeant
on 1 June 1960.  Applicant retired on 1 August 1968 in  the  grade  of
technical sergeant (E-6).  He served 23 years, 4 months and 15 days of
active service.

_________________________________________________________________





AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE states that the applicant has  not  provided  any  specific
details pertaining to why he feels the APR was unsatisfactory.   While
applicant states the contested time period was between 1 May 1965  and
21 September 1965, the only report endorsed by SMSgt B--- covered  the
period  28  January  1966  through  27  January  1967.   A  report  is
considered an accurate assessment when written unless documentation is
provided proving  otherwise.   The  applicant  has  not  provided  any
supporting documentation proving the validity of the comments/markings
made in his APR were in any way questionable.

In summary, nothing was  provided  substantiating  applicant’s  claims
that his APR  was  in  fact  unsatisfactory  and  this  report  solely
eliminated  all  of  his  chances  of  becoming  a  master   sergeant.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.


AFPC/DPPPWB states that a review of  the  applicant’s  record  reveals
only one report was actually indorsed by MSgt B--- (28  January 1966 -
27 January 1967).  The markings/ratings  on  this  report  are  almost
identical to those on the contested report, with the exception of  the
indorsing official (CMSgt B---) marking down the performance of duties
rating in block II.5., and the overall evaluation rating in block  IV.
A board was held in response to an appeal of the APR.  The board found
the report to be  accurate  and  directed  it  remain  in  applicant’s
record.

Promotions during the timeframe the applicant served  on  active  duty
were made at the major command, unless delegated by the major  command
to the wing, group, or squadron levels.  HQ USAF distributed promotion
quotas to the major commands based on projected vacancies within  each
career field subdivision.  Promotion boards selected  individuals  and
the quotas received determined the  number  that  could  be  promoted.
Some career fields received  more  promotions  than  others  based  on
vacancies and the needs of  the  Air  Force.   To  be  considered  for
promotion to master sergeant, an individual must have 24 months  time-
in-grade, possess a 7-skill level Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), and
be recommended by the commander.  These were the  minimum  eligibility
requirements to be considered by the promotion board  but  in  no  way
ensured or guaranteed a promotion.  They found nothing in  his  record
to indicate  an  error  or  injustice  was  made  that  prevented  his
promotion to master sergeant.  Therefore,  they  recommend  denial  of
applicant’s request.

A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reiterates his contentions that he  was  the  victim  of  an
unfair APR rating.

Applicant's response, with attachment, is at 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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or   injustice.
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 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 28 October 2004, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
                 Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2004-00403 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 04, and applicant’s
                       Letter dated 27 Feb 04 w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 15 Mar 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 19 Mar 04.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 02 Apr 04.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 22 Apr 04.




                             RICHARD A. PETERSON
                             Panel Chair