RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02082
      INDEX NUMBERS:  111.02; 131.00;
                                                 107.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His three Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) covering  the  period
21 May 1989 through 31 January 1992 be upgraded to overall  ratings
of 5; he be promoted to Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt/E-8); and  he
be awarded the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM) for the  period
8 August 1988 to 30 September 1992.
___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was forced to retire  and  lost  promotion  to  E-8  because  he
refused  to  cover  up  inspection  deficiency  reports  about  his
supervisors and took leave by working  through  the  base  hospital
instead of receiving his supervisors’ permission.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  applicant  provided   his   personal
statement, copies of the  contested  reports,  documents  submitted
with his rebuttal to the referral EPR  closing  20  May  1991,  and
letters of appreciation/statements from co-workers.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served on  active  duty  from  7  August  1970  until
30 September 1992.  He  voluntarily  retired  effective  1  October
1992.

His highest grade held was MSgt, with a date of rank of 1 September
1989.

Applicant’s  APR/EPR  profile  following  promotion  to   Technical
Sergeant follows:

Period Closing                    Overall Evaluation

  25 Feb 84                       9
       9 Jul 84                         9
      20 May 85                         9
      20 May 86                         9
      20 May 87                         9
      20 May 88                         9
      20 May 89                         9
 *20 May 90 (EPR/MSgt)                       3
 *20 May 91                       2 (Referral)
 *31 Jan 92                       3

* Contested Reports

He met the cycle 93S8 promotion board  for  SMSgt  and  received  a
board score of 285.00 and a total promotion score of  490.49.   The
required score for promotion in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC)
was 679.50.

On 16 August 1991, the Squadron Commander notified the applicant he
would not be awarded the AFGCM for the  period  8  August  1988  to
20 May 1991, due to  his  level  of  performance  during  the  last
reporting period.
___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPE recommends denial and states, in part, that  applicant
failed to  provide  any  support  substantiating  the  reports  are
inaccurate and failed to provide substantial evidence that  he  was
treated unfairly.  In order to substantiate reprisal occurred,  the
applicant must file a complaint with the IG, and include a copy  of
their summary and Report of Investigation  with  his  appeal.   The
applicant did not  mention  any  official  complaint,  nor  did  he
provide  any   substantial   evidence   that   reprisal   occurred.
Furthermore, it was the responsibility of the  evaluators  to  rate
the applicant as they deemed necessary.  There is strong indication
the evaluators were fully aware of the  applicant’s  strengths  and
weaknesses and rated him accordingly.

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB explained that the first  time  the  1990  and  1991
reports were considered in the promotion process was cycle 93S8  to
SMSgt.  The applicant received a total promotion  score  of  490.49
and the required score  for  promotion  in  his  AFSC  was  679.50.
Should the Board grant the applicant’s request to upgrade these two
reports,  he  would   be   entitled   to   supplemental   promotion
consideration.  However, since promotion  history  files  are  only
maintained for a period of 10 years, there is no  way  to  go  back
almost 13 years (board convened October 1991) and determine if  the
applicant would have been selected for promotion.

HQ AFPC/DPPPRA supports denial of the AFGCM stating  there  was  no
documentation found in the member’s records reversing the denial of
the  AFGCM  for  the  period  8  August  1988  to  20   May   1991.
Accordingly, there was no justification  provided  to  reverse  the
decision the commander made at the time.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant contends that he was treated unfairly  by  his  chain  of
command and provides the same supporting  evidence  of  letters  of
appreciation  and   character   references   submitted   with   his
application to demonstrate his work ethic.

Applicant’s response to the Air Force evaluation 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.  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  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.   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 Docket Number BC-2004-
02082 in Executive Session on 5 Oct 04, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 May 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 11 Aug 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Aug 04.
    Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 4 Sep 04, w/atch.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair