RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02594
                                             INDEX CODE:  131.05
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX            COUNSEL: NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXXXX                          HEARING DESIRED: YES

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to chief master sergeant  (CMSgt)  (E-9)  during  the  02E9
promotion cycle and retained on active duty.  If promoted, 60 days of  his
leave be reinstated and he be assigned to Kadena Air Base, Japan.

If his requests  above  are  denied,  he  requests  that  his  records  be
considered for supplemental promotion to CMSgt for promotion  cycle  02E9,
his 8 September 2003 promotion test be thrown out, he be  given  60  days’
study time, and he be re-tested for the 03E9 supplemental board.

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The  02E9  Supplemental  Promotion  Board  wrongfully  used  his  Enlisted
Performance Report (EPR), closing 8 September 2002, when  considering  him
for promotion.  This error did not allow him a fair or  equal  opportunity
to compete for promotion with his peers.  Additionally, he was  wrongfully
tested during promotion cycle 03E9 because he was ineligible for promotion
at that time.

He originally requested a retirement date of 31 August  2002,  which  made
him ineligible for promotion for the 02E9 promotion cycle.  His retirement
was cancelled due to the implementation of the September 2001  Stop  Loss.
He withdrew his request for retirement before the 31 July  2002  promotion
cut off date, allowing his promotion eligibility for  the  02E9  promotion
test cycle to be reinstated.  However, his promotion eligibility  was  not
reinstated until April 2003; therefore, his records were considered by the
02E9 Supplemental Promotion Board.   Prior  to  his  records  meeting  the
board, he attempted to get discrepancies in his  records  corrected.   All
corrections were made prior to the board with the  exception  of  his  EPR
closing 8 September 2002.  The close out date  for  any  records/documents
that could be used/considered for the 02E9 board was 31 July 2002.  He was
surprised when the board did not select him for promotion so  he  inquired
and confirmed that the board had looked  at  the  8  September  2002  EPR;
therefore, not allowing him a fair and equal opportunity to  compete  with
his peers.

He requested retirement again, which was  approved  for  31  August  2003.
Stop Loss also effected his 2003 retirement.  He withdrew  his  retirement
prior to the 31 July 2003 promotion cut off date so he could test for  the
03E9 promotion cycle.  AFI 36-2605 states that members  who  become  newly
eligible for promotion must receive at least 60 days study time  to  study
reference material prior to testing.  The Air Force revised the  Promotion
Fitness Evaluation (PFE) manual for the 03E9  promotion  cycle;  therefore
making the previous 02E9 PFE obsolete and his prior  study  time  useless.
The promotion testing section notified him that he would test for the 03E9
test cycle on 8 September 2003 and since he had just tested for  the  02E9
cycle on 24 June 2003, he would not get any further  study  time  for  the
03E9 promotion cycle.  The chief of testing  also  told  him  that  the  8
September 2003 date for testing was his only opportunity to test  for  the
03E9 testing cycle and if he did not  accept  it  he  would  be  shown  as
declining his opportunity to test for that cycle.   However,  he  did  not
become eligible to test until 8 October 2003.  He was made to test for the
03E9 test cycle even though he was ineligible to test for  that  promotion
cycle and he did not get his required 60 days of study time.

He truly believes he would have been promoted during  the  02E9  promotion
cycle and retained on active duty.  Had he been promoted during either  of
the 02E9 or 03E9 promotion cycles, he would not have wasted his  116  days
terminal leave and would have never requested retirement.  In addition, if
he hadn’t been wrongfully placed on Stop Loss during March 2003, he  would
not have been forced to waste his leave that he  had  saved  for  terminal
leave.

In support of his application, the applicant provides personal statements;
an  excerpt  from   AFI   36-2605;   electronic   and   computer-generated
communications concerning  his  promotion  eligibility  and  testing;  and
copies of his EPRs closing 8 September 2001 and  8 September  2002.    The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A (two  -
DD Forms 149 with attachments).

__________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 25 March 1977, the applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  at  the
age of 19 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a  period  of  four  years.
He was  progressively  promoted  to  the  rank  of  Senior  Master  Sergeant
effective and with a date of rank of 1 August 1999.

The applicant was  non-selected  for  promotion  by  the  02E9  Supplemental
Evaluation Selection Board and the 03E9 Central Evaluation Board.

On 1 August 2004, the applicant was notified  that  the  Evaluation  Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB) approved voiding his  8  September  2002  EPR;  however,
they disapproved his request for supplemental  promotion  consideration  for
the 03E9 Central Evaluation Board because  the  corrective  action  was  not
initiated prior to the original central evaluation board.

On 4 October 2004, the applicant  was  notified  by  AFPC/DPPPWM,  that  his
records would be considered on 2 May 2005 for  03E9  supplemental  promotion
consideration due to his voided EPR.

The applicant  was  honorably  discharged  from  active  duty  effective  30
September 2004 and retired effective 1 October 2004.  He served 27 years,  3
months, and 7 days on active duty.

__________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s  requests.   DPPPWB  states
that the Chief of  the  Senior  Non-Commissioned  Officer  (SNCO)  Promotion
Section verified in a 16 October 2003 message to the applicant that the  top
report in his record for the 02E9 Supplemental Promotion Board closed out  8
September  2001.    When  the  applicant  was  notified  by  AFPC  that  his
8 September 2002 report was on top of his record,  his  record  had  already
been re-aged for the 03E9 cycle.

DPPPWB states the applicant should never have been  eligible  for  promotion
consideration for the 03E9 promotion  cycle;  however,  he  was  erroneously
tested on 8 September 2003.  His total promotion score was  592.45  and  the
score required for promotion in his Air Force  Specialty  Code  was  645.42.
DPPPWB states that in reference to the  applicant’s  contentions  concerning
lack of study time,  AFI  36-2505,  Air  Force  Military  Personnel  Testing
System, indicates, “Do not delay  testing  to  give  additional  study  time
unless members did not have access to study reference materials at least  60
days prior to test date.”  It is DPPPWB’s opinion  that  the  applicant  had
sufficient access to study material prior to his test date because  the  new
PFE was distributed in April 2003 and  available  in  June  2003.   The  PDF
format version was available through the web starting in June 2003 as  well.
  Additionally,  when  a  member  signs  the  promotion  testing  Report  on
Individual Person, he or she is waiving the right to 60 days even if  he  or
she does not have the materials 60 days prior to the test date.

DPPPWB  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request  for  supplemental
promotion consideration for cycle 02E9 since  the  correct  EPRs  were  seen
during the promotion process.  Additionally, they recommend  denial  of  his
request for supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 03E9 because  his
complaint is baseless.  DPPPWB states the applicant was later  found  to  be
ineligible for promotion and while he did received  erroneous  consideration
initially, this error should not be perpetuated by allowing  him  additional
erroneous promotion consideration regardless of the merits of  his  argument
concerning test preparation.  The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief SNCO Promotion Section did not verify  anything  except  that  she
was trying to cover up their mistake in allowing the wrong EPR  to  be  used
during the 02E9 supplemental promotion board.  AFPC is trying to  find  ways
to justify/cover-up the mistakes they have  made  concerning  his  promotion
opportunities during the 02E9 and 03E9 promotion cycles.

He was not promotion eligible for the 03E9 promotion cycle until  8  October
2003; therefore, he had no idea when his testing date would be.   He  should
have been given 60 days with study materials prior to testing for  the  03E9
promotion cycle when he became eligible.  AFPC confirms he  was  erroneously
tested on 8 September 2003.  He signed an Air Force Form 1566;  however,  it
does not state anywhere on the form about  waiving  his  60  days  of  study
time.  However, it does state that if he  did  not  complete  the  form,  it
constitutes refusal to test and renders him ineligible for promotion  during
that promotion cycle.

He wrote every office in his chain of  command  trying  to  get  someone  to
correct the wrong things that happened to him in the last couple  of  years.
His complaints keep getting turned over to AFPC/IG  for  response.   AFPC/IG
only sends bogus answers and never addresses his issues.

He received a letter, dated 4 October 2004, from  AFPC/DPPPWM  allowing  him
supplemental promotion consideration for the 03E9  promotion  cycle  because
the ERAB approved voiding his 8 September 2002  EPR.   However,  they  don’t
mention anything about  throwing  out  the  erroneous  test  he  took  on  8
September 2003.  His records meeting the 03E9 Supplemental  Promotion  Board
using  the  8 September  2003  erroneous  test  results  is  clearly  wrong.
AFPC/DPPP has made many excuses, false and inaccurate statements  in  trying
to cover-up the unfair/wrongful  handling  of  his  promotion  opportunities
during the 02E9 and 03E9 promotion cycles.  He believes  they  are  confused
about what they  have  said  and  wrote.   The  applicant’s  rebuttal,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit E.  The applicant’s  additional  comments  (after
receiving approval for  03E9  Supplemental  Promotion  Consideration),  with
attachments, are at 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice.  The applicant requests direct  promotion
to CMSgt by the 02E9 promotion cycle, reimbursement of 60 days  of  leave,
and assignment to Kadena AB,  Japan.   He  states,  if  his  requests  are
denied, he wants his records to be considered for  supplemental  promotion
to CMSgt for promotion cycle 02E9, his 8 September 2003 promotion test  be
thrown out, he be given 60 days’ study time, and he be re-tested  for  the
03E9 supplemental board.   After  thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence  of
record, we find no evidence to show that the applicant’s records  were  in
error  when  they  were  considered  for   02E9   supplemental   promotion
consideration; therefore, his request for direct  promotion  to  CMSgt  or
additional supplemental promotion consideration  for  the  02E9  promotion
cycle is not warranted.  Since submitting his appeal,  the  applicant  was
notified  his  records   would   receive   03E9   supplemental   promotion
consideration on 2 May 2005 because the ERAB voided his 8  September  2002
EPR.  In the case of the applicant’s request for leave  reimbursement,  it
appears  that  when  the  applicant  voluntarily  pulled  his   retirement
paperwork, the responsible  officials  applied  appropriate  standards  in
determining the  usage  of  his  use  or  loose  leave.   Other  than  the
applicant’s assertions, we find no evidence to show that the applicant was
not afforded the same opportunities as  other  members  in  his  situation
concerning  the  usage  of  his  leave.   Therefore,  we  agree  with  the
recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as  the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden
that he has suffered either an error or an  injustice.   In  view  of  the
foregoing, we conclude that no basis  exists  to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought in this application.

4.  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 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 17 February 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
            Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
            Mr. Christopher D. Carey, Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-2004-02594
was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 16 Aug 04, with attachments.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dtd 24 Aug 04, with atchs.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Sep 04.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dtd 17 Sep 04, with atchs.
      Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dtd 6 Oct 04, with atchs.




                             MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                             Panel Chair