RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02532
            INDEX CODE:  100.07, 131.04

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 FEB 2006


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Force Specialty  Code  (AFSC)  of  3P051  (Security  Forces
Journeyman) be reinstated as a  secondary  AFSC;  and  that  he  be
promoted to the rank of staff sergeant (SSgt) with a promotion date
to reflect the 03E5 promotion cycle.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was wrongfully retrained out of his primary AFSC (3P051) because
of wrong information generated by the commander’s support staff and
the squadron, resulting in him being  wrongfully  denied  promotion
opportunities for  the  Weighted  Airman  Promotion  System  (WAPS)
cycles 03E5 and 04E5, and if this is not corrected, cycles 05E5 and
06E5, due to the Career Development Course (CDC) for his new career
field.    His  AFSC  3P051,   Security   Forces   Apprentice,   was
erroneously  withdrawn  due  to  incorrect  information  concerning
Article 15 charges  under  Article  121  versus  Article  132.   He
received nonjudicial punishment for a fraudulent claim regarding  a
“Do it Yourself” (DITY) move, when he moved from one on-base  house
to another.

A separation versus retention package was  initiated  stating  that
his primary 3P051 AFSC was removed and he could no longer serve  in
the security forces career field because he  received  non-judicial
punishment that resulted  in  a  reduction  in  rank  for  offenses
involving wrongful appropriations.  This would be true  if  he  had
been charged under Article 121 Larceny and Wrongful  Appropriation,
but he was not.  The information used in his package was incorrect,
but was still forwarded up his chain of command for approval.  When
it was written, they used Article 121 (Wrongful Appropriation)  for
the fact based information.  Wrongful appropriation has nothing  to
do with Article 132, Frauds Against  the  United  States,  and  the
article he was charged with and  served  punishment  for.   AFI 36-
2108, para 3.5.2.5 should not have had any bearing on his situation
or his career status in the security forces career field.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  applicant  submitted   an   expanded
statement;  a  statement  from  his  Area  Defense  Counsel,  dated
10 Aug 04; an Air Force Office  of  Special  Investigation  (AFOSI)
Report of Investigation; extracts from his military personnel  file
(to include the Article  15,  dated  24  Apr  02;  a  copy  of  his
Separation vs. Retention package, WAPS promotion data, and his last
six enlisted performance  reports),  along  with  other  supporting
documentation.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 Jul 97.  Prior  to
the events under review he  was  promoted  to  the  rank  of  staff
sergeant with a date of rank and effective date of 1 Mar 02.

On 18 Mar 02,  the  Air  Force  Office  of  Special  Investigations
(AFOSI) initiated an investigation  against  the  applicant  for  a
possible fraudulent claim regarding a “Do It Yourself  (DITY)  move
claim between 13 and 15 Mar 02.  Applicant had estimated his weight
would be 5000 pounds, however, on 15 Mar  02,  he  reported  11,640
pounds as being moved.  Shortly after his move, a  quality  control
inspector went to applicant’s new on-base residence and  could  not
find property  consistent  with  the  reported  weight.   Applicant
subsequently confessed to reweighing his  property  several  times.
For this misconduct, he received an Article 15 for Violation of the
Uniform  Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ),  Article  132.    His
punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of senior  airman,
with a new date of rank of 24 Apr 02 and restriction  to  the  base
for 30 days.

Applicant’s  Primary  AFSC  of  3P051  was   withdrawn,   effective
24 Apr 02, based on his Article 15 violation.

On 7 Feb  03,  applicant’s  commander  requested  retention  versus
separation review, and recommended retraining for the applicant who
was disqualified for  cause  from  his  Primary  AFSC,  3P051.   On
24 Mar 03,  the  wing  commander   approved   the   applicant   for
retraining.

Applicant  is   currently   serving   in   AFSC   1A331   (Airborne
Communications and Electronics Systems Apprentice), in the grade of
SSgt, with a date of rank of 1 Nov 04.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPAC reviewed this application  and  determined  that  the
applicant’s AFSC 3P051 can be reinstated as a secondary AFSC  which
can be accomplished  through  pertinent  administrative  procedures
which do not require referral to the AFBCMR.

Applicant received an Article  15  for  fraud  against  the  United
States and was sentenced  to  reduction  to  the  grade  of  senior
airman, with new date of rank of 24 Apr 02, 30 days of  extra  duty
and restriction to the base.  The Article 15, by  itself,  did  not
require  AFSC  withdrawal.   Administrative  relief  is   available
because AFSCs withdrawn  erroneously  may  be  reawarded.   In  the
applicant’s case  the  military  personnel  flight  (MPF)  has  the
authority to reaward the AFSC as a secondary AFSC.  However,  there
is no guarantee that the applicant will  be  utilized  again  as  a
3P0X1.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed this application  and  recommended  denial.
Applicant was ineligible for promotion consideration to SSgt during
cycle 03E5 due to being removed for cause from  his  AFSC  (3P0X1),
effective 24 Apr 02.  DPPAC has  determined  applicant’s  AFSC  was
erroneously withdrawn and suggests he  seek  administrative  relief
through his MPF.

If applicant is reawarded 3P0X1  as  a  secondary  AFSC,  he  would
receive supplemental promotion  consideration  in  the  9A000  AFSC
(retraining or  pending  retraining)  beginning  with  cycle  03E5.
Since the applicant never tested for cycle 03E5, he would take  the
current test  for  cycle  04E5  and  his  score  would  be  applied
retroactively to the 03E5 cycle.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/JA reviewed this application and recommended that he should
be granted an opportunity to compete at a  supplemental  board  for
promotion to SSgt.  They stated in  part,  to  remain  a  qualified
member of the Security Forces career field,  an  airman  must  have
never received nonjudicial punishment under the UCMJ which resulted
in  either  reduction  or  suspended   reduction   in   grade,   or
correctional  custody  for  offenses  involving  acts  of  larceny,
wrongful  appropriation,  robbery,  burglars,   housebreaking,   or
misconduct in combat.  Because the applicant was not  charged  with
violating  one  of  the  offenses  enumerated  requiring  automatic
removal from the Security Forces career field, DPPAC determined  he
should have his AFSC reinstated.  When he lost his AFSC for  cause,
he automatically became ineligible for promotion consideration  and
would remain in that status until he was awarded an AFSC at a skill
level commensurate with his grade.  However, the  reinstatement  of
the applicant’s AFSC renders him eligible for  promotion  effective
cycle 03E5.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 3 Dec 04 for review and comment within  30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F).

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice  warranting   supplemental
promotion consideration.  Applicant  requests  his  3P051  AFSC  be
reinstated as a secondary AFSC and that his promotion to  the  rank
of staff  sergeant  (SSgt)  be  effective  the  date  of  the  03E5
promotion cycle.  The board found that AFSC 3P051  was  erroneously
withdrawn for cause and the applicant was rendered  ineligible  for
promotion consideration to SSgt during  cycle  03E5.   In  view  of
this, and to preclude any further injustice to  the  applicant,  we
believe  the  supplemental  promotion  consideration  provides   an
equitable process to consider airmen with errors in  their  records
and is the most  appropriate  forum  to  consider  the  applicant’s
promotion potential.  Therefore, we agree  with  the  opinions  and
recommendations of the Air  Force  and  recommend  the  applicant’s
records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

4.  Insufficient  relevant   evidence   has   been   presented   to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice in  regard  to  the
applicant’s  request  to  have  AFSC  3P051  redesignated  as   his
secondary AFSC.  It appears the applicant’s  AFSC  3P051  has  been
reawarded and designated as his primary AFSC and AFSC 1A331 as  the
secondary.  Although the designation of the AFSCs is not exactly in
line with the applicant’s requests, he has not established that the
corrections are inaccurate.  Therefore, in the absence of  evidence
to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend  granting
the relief sought in regard to the applicant’s AFSC designation.

5.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issues  involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

___________________________________________________________________






THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT be provided  supplemental  consideration  for
promotion to the grade of staff sergeant for promotion cycle 03E5.

If AFPC discovers any  adverse  factors  during  or  subsequent  to
supplemental  consideration  that  are  separate  and  apart,   and
unrelated to the issues involved in this  application,  that  would
have rendered the applicant ineligible  for  this  promotion,  such
information will be documented and presented to  the  Board  for  a
final determination on  the  individual's  qualifications  for  the
promotion.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2004-02532 in Executive  Session  on  18  May  2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member
      Ms. Rita S. Looney, Member

All members voted to correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Aug 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAC, dated 20 Sep 04.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 8 Oct 04.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 24 Nov 04.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Dec 04.




                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair




AFBCMR BC-2004-02532




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the
authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat
116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant for
promotion cycle 03E5.

      If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated
to the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered
the applicant ineligible for this promotion, such information will be
documented and presented to the Board for a final determination on the
individual's qualifications for the promotion.







            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency