RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02718
            INDEX CODES:  100.05, 111.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  4 Mar 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

By amendment, his promotion eligibility  be  reinstated  so  his  test
scores for  the  03E6  cycle  can  be  graded;  he  receive  promotion
consideration for cycle 04E6; his training status code be  changed  to
reflect that the Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of 9A100 was not  the
first AFSC he was awarded so that he  can  test  using  the  Promotion
Fitness Examination (PFE) only; his Duty AFSC on his  EPR  closing  in
2003 reflect the AFSC of 1N2  (Communications  Signals  Intelligence);
and he be provided any other corrective action to remove the effect of
the injustice he has suffered.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In Jul 99, he received an Article 15.   His  commander  suspended  his
access to SCI (Sensitive Compartmental Information) materials  and  he
was reduced  in  rank  by  a  grade.   About  four  months  after  the
punishment, his commander recommended he get his access back and he be
returned to work.  Subsequently, his  AFSC  of  1N251  was  improperly
withdrawn, and he became promotion ineligible.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, excerpts  of  an  Air  Force  Instruction,  copies  of  his
Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs), and  other  documents  associated
with the matter under review.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
the applicant is currently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
staff sergeant, with a date of rank (DOR) of  1 Jul 01.   His  Primary
AFSC and DAFSC are 1C731 (Airfield Management), and his duty title  is
Airfield Management Apprentice.  His  Total  Active  Federal  Military
Service Date (TAFMSD) is 17 Aug 87.

Applicant's EPR profile since 1993 follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      31 Mar 93        5
      27 Oct 93                    Removed by Order of SAF
      27 Oct 94        3
      17 Jul 95        5
      17 Jul 96        4
      17 Jul 97        5
      17 Jul 98        4
      17 Jul 99        3
      30 Mar 00        4
      31 Mar 01        5
      15 Sep 01        5
      15 Sep 02        5
  *   15 Sep 03        5
  *   28 May 04        5

* Contested reports.

On 14 Jun 99, the applicant received an Article  15  for  violating  a
lawful general regulation by wrongfully  using  government  electronic
mail (e-mail) and maltreatment of a female petty officer by  harassing
her.  He was reduced from  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant  to  senior
airman, with a date of rank of 14 Jun 99.  He appealed the  punishment
but it was denied.

On 10 Nov 00, the Board considered an application  pertaining  to  the
applicant, in which he  requested  the  nonjudicial  punishment  under
Article 15 be set aside or reduced, and his EPR closing 17 Jul  99  be
voided and removed from  his  records.   The  majority  of  the  Board
recommended  his  requests  be  denied,  which  was  approved  by  the
Director, Air Force Review Boards Agency on 1 Feb 01.   The  applicant
requested  reconsideration  of  his  appeal.   On   12   Jul   02,   a
determination was made that his request did not meet the criteria  for
reconsideration by the Board (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAC  recommended  denial  noting  the  applicant’s   AFSC   was
withdrawn under the provisions of AFI  36-2101,  Classifying  Military
Personnel.  They also noted the memorandum provided by  the  applicant
stated the Air Force Central Adjudication  Facility  (AFCAF)  informed
him that his clearance was being denied in a letter dated 27  Jun  03.
A HQ ACC/DP memorandum dated 6 Mar 04  also  reflected  the  clearance
denial information.  In their view, these memoranda  substantiate  the
AFSC withdrawal action was valid.  The withdrawal action  should  have
been  accomplished  effective  27 Jun  03.   The  only  classification
provision that allows reinstatement of an AFSC is paragraph 3.6 of AFI
36-2101, which states that an AFSC may be reinstated by the Air  Force
Career Field Manager if the original reason for withdrawal  no  longer
exists.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAC evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPE  indicated  they  agreed  with  AFPC/DPPAC  regarding   the
validity of the withdrawal of the  applicant’s  AFSC.   However,  they
stated the applicant’s 15 Sep 03 EPR was in error.  In accordance with
the  AFI  36-2406,  Table  3.7,  Rule  9,  an  EPR  is  required  when
authorities place a ratee in reporting identifiers  9A100  and  9A000.
Therefore, the report’s DAFSC should read “1N251,” the close-out  date
should read “26 Jun 03,” the number of days of supervision should read
“284,” and the reason for the report should read “DBH.”   Further  the
28 May 04 EPR should be corrected to coincide with the  prior  report.
The from date should read “27  Jun  03”  and  the  DAFSC  should  read
“9A100.”  The applicant’s duty  history  reads  9A100,  not  9A000  as
stated by him.

AFPC/DPPPWB indicated the applicant tested for cycle 03E6  in  Jun 03;
however, he became ineligible for  promotion  consideration  when  his
AFSC was withdrawn on 27 Jun 03.   The  system  currently  reflects  a
promotion eligibility status (PES)  code  of  “Q”  (Disqualified  from
previously awarded AFSC for cause).  In accordance with  AFI  36-2502,
Table 1.1, Rule 18, members are ineligible for promotion consideration
if they are disqualified from a previously  awarded  AFSC  for  cause.
They remain  ineligible  until  awarded  a  PAFSC  at  a  skill  level
commensurate with their current grade.  If it is found  the  applicant
was erroneously removed  from  his  AFSC,  he  would  be  entitled  to
supplemental promotion consideration in the 00XXX AFSC for cycle  03E6
using scores currently on file.  If not selected, he  would  take  the
current test for cycle 04E6 in the 00XXX AFSC once he is given 60 days
access to the current study material.  If he is unable to  test  prior
to 31 Dec 04 (test becomes obsolete), he would test for the  05E6  and
his  score  would  be  retroactively  applied  back  to  cycle   04E6.
Corrections to the DAFSC on the contested reports would not affect the
promotion process.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPE and AFPC/DPPPWB  evaluations  is  at
Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

By  letter,  dated  25  Oct  04,  the  applicant  provided  additional
documentation for  the  Board’s  consideration  through  SAF/MRBR  and
requested the Board reconsider his Article 15 punishment (Exhibit F).

By letter, dated 28 Oct 04, SAF/MRBR advised the  applicant  that  his
additional documents would be included as a part of  his  application.
However, his request for reconsideration of his Article 15 would  have
to be submitted as a separate request, since it was not a part of this
appeal (Exhibit G).

Applicant reviewed the advisory  opinions  and  furnished  a  response
indicating the basis of his request is not  because  he  believes  his
AFSC was withdrawn without merit, but it was done improperly according
to AFI 36-2101.

According to the applicant, his case comes down to  the  fact  he  was
retrained under the Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Retraining  Program,
his AFSC was changed in the system in Jan 04 (four  months  after  his
approved retraining package came  back)  without  a  source  document.
There was no need to change or remove  his  AFSC  with  a  class  date
pending.  This all happened over two years  after  his  clearance  had
been suspended in 2001.  He is  being  punished  all  over  again  for
actions he has more than paid for earlier.  That  makes  time  another
issue and concern he  has  with  this  matter.   Since  1999,  he  has
received five EPRs, a Joint Service Achievement Medal (JSAM),  an  Air
Force Achievement Medal, several performer of the  month  and  quarter
awards, and numerous day passes for his work.  He has done  everything
he was supposed to do to move on with his life and his career.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

Applicant provided subsequent  responses  and  additional  documentary
evidence for the Board’s consideration, which are attached at Exhibits
J, K, L, and M.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAF/JAA addressed the applicant’s assertions  that  his  AFSC  was
withdrawn in violation of the governing directive and indicated it did
appear  the  administrative  processing  of  the  withdrawal  of   the
applicant’s AFSC was delayed, and somewhat  irregular.   However,  the
underlying withdrawal was proper and  mandatory  under  the  governing
directive.  The procedural and  administrative  errors  cited  by  the
applicant do not affect the substantive propriety of  the  withdrawal.
HQ USAF/JAA does not believe the applicant’s  AFSC  was  withdrawn  in
violation  of  the  governing  directive,  nor  do  they  believe  any
corrective action by the Board is warranted.

A complete copy of the HQ USAF/JAA evaluation is at Exhibit N.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant provided a  detailed  response  indicating,  in  part,  that
HQ USAF/JAA has missed the point regarding the withdrawal of his AFSC.
 He further reiterates that proper procedures  were  not  followed  in
accordance with the governing directive.  His case is not solely based
on if his AFSC should or should not have been removed.  In  his  view,
the real issue is whether it should have been removed in the manner it
was done.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit P.

_________________________________________________________________

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 regarding the applicant’s EPRs closing
15 Sep 03 and 28 May 04.  A review of the evidence presented indicates
the applicant’s AFSC of 1N251 was withdrawn on 27 Jun 03 after he  was
denied his security clearance on that date.  As a result, he was given
a reporting identifier of 9A100.  AFPC/DPPPE indicated  the  governing
instruction requires an EPR be prepared when a ratee is  placed  in  a
reporting identifier of 9A100.  Therefore, based on the withdrawal  of
his AFSC, the applicant’s EPR closing 15 Sep 03 should have closed out
on 26 Jun 03, and the DAFSC, number of days of supervision, and reason
for the report should have been changed.  Further, the from  date  and
DAFSC of the EPR closing 28 May 04 should also be amended.  In view of
the foregoing, we recommend the applicant’s records  be  corrected  to
the extent set forth below.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice  concerning  the  applicant’s
requests  that  his  promotion  eligibility  for  the  03E6  cycle  be
reinstated, he receive promotion consideration for cycle 04E6, and his
training status code be changed to reflect the AFSC of 9A100  was  not
the first AFSC he was awarded so he can test using the PFE only.   The
applicant's  complete  submission  was  thoroughly  reviewed  and  his
contentions were duly noted.  However, we do not find the  applicant’s
assertions and the documentation provided in  support  of  his  appeal
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs).  As noted  above,  the
applicant was denied his security clearance, resulting in his AFSC  of
1N251 being withdrawn.  It appears his security clearance  was  denied
because of his nonjudicial punishment under Article 15.  We  note  the
applicant has previously  petitioned  this  Board  to  set  aside  the
Article 15 or reduce the punishment, which was  denied.   No  evidence
has been presented that would lead us to believe  a  reversal  of  the
Board’s previous determination regarding the Article 15 is  warranted.
Since the applicant was disqualified from his AFSC for  cause,  he  is
currently ineligible for promotion consideration.  Although it appears
he has retrained into another career field, he remains ineligible  for
promotion consideration until he is awarded a PAFSC at a  skill  level
commensurate with his current grade.  In view of the foregoing, and in
the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we agree with  the
recommendation of the OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis  for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain  his  burden  of
establishing that he has suffered either an  error  or  an  injustice.
Accordingly, we conclude that no basis exists to  recommend  favorable
action on the applicant’s requests.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

      a.  The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), AF Form 910, rendered
for the period 16 Sep 02 through 15 Sep 03 be amended in Section I  to
show the Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) as “1N251,” the  period
of the report as 16 Sep 02 through 26 Jun 03, the number  of  days  of
supervision as “284,” and the reason for the report as “DBH.”

      b.  The EPR, AF Form 910, rendered for  the  period  16  Sep  03
through 28 May 04 be  amended  in  Section I  to  show  the  DAFSC  as
“9A100,” and the from date as “27 Jun 03.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 15 Mar 05 and 6 Jul 05, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
      Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-
2004-02718 was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Aug 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum for the Executive Director,
                 dated 1 Feb 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAC, dated 30 Sep 04.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE and AFPC/DPPPWB,
                 dated 21 Oct 04.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 25 Oct 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Oct 04.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 04.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, applicant, dated 12 Nov 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit J.  Letter, applicant, dated 20 Nov 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit K.  Letter, applicant, dated 22 Nov 04.
     Exhibit L.  Letter, applicant, dated 16 Jan 05.
     Exhibit M.  Letter, applicant, dated 1 Feb 05, w/atchs.
     Exhibit N.  Letter, HQ USAF/JAA, dated 7 Apr 05.
     Exhibit O.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Apr 05.
     Exhibit P.  Letter, applicant, dated 25 Apr 05, w/atch.




                                   B. J. WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair




AFBCMR BC-2004-02718




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 , be corrected to show that:

            a.  The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), AF Form 910,
rendered for the period 16 Sep 02 through 15 Sep 03 be amended in
Section I to show the Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) as
“1N251,” the period of the report as 16 Sep 02 through 26 Jun 03, the
number of days of supervision as “284,” and the reason for the report
as “DBH.”

            b.  The EPR, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 16 Sep
03 through 28 May 04 be amended in Section I to show the DAFSC as
“9A100,” and the from date as “27 Jun 03.”






    JOE G. LINEBERGER

    Director

    Air Force Review Boards Agency