RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-04285
            INDEX CODE:  131.09

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The six-month in grade requirement to retire in the highest grade held
be waived so he may retire in the  grade  of  senior  master  sergeant
(SMSgt/E-8).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was promoted to the grade of SMSgt in accordance  with  established
Air National Guard (ANG) instructions in July 2003.  His promotion was
revoked in September 2003.  He states his management was clearly aware
of the merit placement process when they approved  his  promotion  and
the consequences  of  their  decision  to  revoke  his  promotion  has
resulted in unjust treatment as well as creating a negative impact  to
his personal welfare and financial well-being.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of the ANG
promotion and revocation orders, the ANG service agreement  he  signed
in order to be promoted, a retraining promotion program statement, and
an Air Force Form 2096, Classification/On-the-Job Training Action.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, an Active/Guard Reserve (AGR) member of the Arizona ANG
(AZ ANG), was laterally transferred into a  full-time  GS-09  civilian
position attached to a  military  position  at  the  grade  of  SMSgt.
Consequently, he was promoted to SMSgt on 12 July 2003  after  signing
statements agreeing to remain in the AZ ANG for a period of two  years
and to retrain in order to  accept  the  promotion.   His  unit  later
determined that his job transfer had not been done in accordance  with
the State of Arizona Directive 25-6, Merit Placement Plans,  Excepted,
Air National Guard and Reserve Competitive  Service.   His  full  time
lateral transfer was terminated and his promotion  was  determined  by
the Adjutant General of  Arizona  to  be  without  original  basis  of
authority, was declared null and void, and was revoked  on  15  August
2003.  When the position was later formally announced, he  was  unable
to meet the specialized training requirements and  was  therefore  not
selected for the position.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AND/DPPI indicates after having reviewed all available  documentation,
and in consideration of the injustice the member suffered  through  no
fault of his own, this Headquarters  recommends  that  the  six  month
requirement as stated in AFI 36-3203 be waived and that the member  be
permitted to retain the grade of Senior  Master  Sergeant/E-8  on  the
USAF Retired List.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6
August 2004 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of  this  date,
no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPPI  recommends  denial.    After   reviewing   all   appropriate
documentation concerning applicant’s request, DPPI has found that  Air
Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3203, Service Retirements,  specifies  that
members are placed on the USAF Reserve Retired  list  in  the  current
grade held.   However,  AFI  36-3203  goes  on  to  say  “Members  who
previously held a higher grade and  served  satisfactorily  on  active
duty for at least six months,  may  be  placed  on  the  USAF  Reserve
Retired List immediately in the higher grade.”  DPPI notes  since  the
order was revoked, he never actually  held  the  grade  of  SMSgt  and
therefore the request  to  waive  the  six-month  requirement  is  not
applicable.

DPPI’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 1 October 2004 for review and comment within 30 days.  As
of this date, no response has been received by this office
_______________________________________________________________


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

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.   It  appears  the  applicant  was  laterally
transferred into a GS-09 civilian position  that  allowed  him  to  be
militarily promoted to the grade of SMSgt.  It  was  later  determined
the process used to transfer him  was  not  done  in  accordance  with
Arizona state directives.  The transfer was terminated and the Arizona
Adjutant General revoked his promotion to  SMSgt.   The  position  was
later advertised but the applicant failed to meet specialized training
requirements and was not selected.  We certainly sympathize  with  the
applicant, but because his promotion was revoked, we cannot consider a
waiver  of  the  six-month  time-in-grade   requirement   because   he
technically never held  the  grade.   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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-04285  in  Executive  Session  on  4  January  2005,  under   the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Dec 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 29 Jul 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 04.
    Exhibit E.    Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 29 Sep 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Oct 04.




                                   PATRICIA D. VESTAL
                                   Panel Chair