RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00646
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  chief  master
sergeant for cycle 82S9.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Meritorious Service Medal  (MSM)  was  not  considered  in  the
overall promotion board score, which  resulted  in  him  not  being
selected for promotion to chief master sergeant.   Applicant  feels
his board score for cycle 82S9 was incorrect.

In support of his appeal,  the  applicant  submits  copies  of  his
Senior NCO Promotion Score Notices for cycle 82S9.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served on active duty from 11 Jun 54 to 30 Jun 82.

The applicant received an MSM for the period 3 Oct 79 – 2  Oct  80,
which met the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD)  of  31  Dec
80, for cycle 82S9.  The  MSM  is  worth  five  weighted  promotion
points.

Applicant was considered and nonselected  for  promotion  to  CMSgt
during the CMSgt Central Evaluation Board  for  cycle  82S9,  which
convened on 23 Feb 81.

On 30 Jun 82, he was honorably relieved from  active  duty  in  the
grade of E-8, and retired for years of service, effective 1 Jul 82.


Applicant provided two senior NCO promotion score notices for cycle
82S9.  The score notice prepared 17 Mar 81,  reflects  “decorations
used (number/type) and score” – 4 AF  Commendation  Medals,  for  a
score of 12.00 points.  Applicant’s total weighted score and  board
score was 629.66; the score required for selection in his AFSC  was
652.27.  The notice prepared 15 May 81, reflects “decorations  used
(number/type) and score”  –  1  Meritorious  Service  Medal,  4  AF
Commendation Medals, for a score of 17.00 points.  The  applicant’s
total weighted score and board score  was  634.66,  and  the  score
required for selection was 652.27.

Per Special Order, dated 22  Jul  82,  applicant  was  awarded  the
Meritorious Service Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster, for  the  period
17 Oct 80  –  30  Jun  82.   AFPC  administratively  corrected  the
applicant’s DD Form 214 to reflect this award on 3 May 04.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed this application  and  recommended  denial.
They stated, in part, that the applicant  was  properly  considered
for  promotion  during  cycle  82S9  and  awarded  the  appropriate
weighted points for his MSM.  A review of the applicant’s  military
records revealed a SNCO Promotion  Brief  dated  27  Jan  81,  that
reflected an MSM was added to his Brief.  Based on the above,  they
can only assume either the citation or decoration  was  present  in
the SNCO selection folder and was seen by the Board.  However,  the
decoration was not updated  in  the  system  at  the  time  initial
selects were run as evidenced by the score notice dated 17 Mar  81.
The decoration was later updated in the system,  which  caused  the
applicant  to  automatically  run  in  the  in-system  supplemental
process.  He received another score notice dated 15 May 81 with the
added  five  weighted  points  for  the  MSM  and  he   was   still
nonselected.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit B.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant contends the Board did not consider  his  MSM,  that  the
original brief he submitted did not reflect an MSM,  and  that  the
MSM was not in his military records  at  the  time  of  the  Board,
consequently resulting in his denial to the pay grade of E-9.

The Review Board provided him with a copy of his  Promotion  Brief,
which was not an original and had been altered.  The MSM was  typed
in on this altered  brief  to  give  the  appearance  of  it  being
authentic.   Also,  the  MSM  (1OLC)  was  not  considered  by  the
promotion board.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.
___________________________________________________________________

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.   Applicant’s
contentions that the MSM for the period 3 Oct 79 to 2 Oct  80,  was
not included on the original brief that was submitted to  him,  was
not in his records when the promotion board convened, and therefore
was not considered by the board, are duly  noted.   However,  given
the untimeliness of his appeal, we do not find these arguments,  in
and  of  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to   override   the
rationale expressed by the Air Force.  Therefore, we agree with the
opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force  office  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.  Based on  the  foregoing,  and  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  We noted applicant’s contention that the  MSM,  1OLC,  was  not
considered by the promotion board; however, since  this  award  did
not close out until 30 Jun 82, and was not awarded until 22 Jul 82,
it did not meet the eligibility criteria for cycle 82S9.

___________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number BC-2004-
00646 in Executive Session on 21 July 2004, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member



The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Feb 04, w/atchs
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 23 Apr 04, w/atchs
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 May 04
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 May 04




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair