RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03768
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  Yes


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  7 Jun 06


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The “Stop Roster” action imposed on him in July 1994 be  removed  from
his records and he be advanced to the grade of  master  sergeant  with
all entitlements and pay.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Two  “issues”  in  his  personnel  records  negatively  impacted   his
promotions during the period 17 Jul 95 to 31 Jan 00:

        a.  On 16 Jul 94, he  received  disciplinary  action  for  his
conduct  on  the  flight  line  consisting  of   30   days   inpatient
participation in the  Substance  Abuse  Rehabilitation  and  Treatment
(SART) program, one year “Stop Roster,” 45 days  of  extra  duty,  and
forfeiture of $300.00 per month for two months.  The “Stop Roster” was
explained to him as a disciplinary  action  that  prevented  worldwide
tours, promotions, awards, etc.  However, the action was never removed
from his records.

        b.  He injured his arm in 1994 and subsequently worked out  of
his career field for four years.  He could not test for  promotion  in
his career field because he was  not  actively  participating  in  his
career field.  Although he had  outstanding  reviews  and  recognition
during this period, they served no purpose and did  not  count  toward
promotion and advancement.  According to Air Force instructions,  when
working outside of your career  field  for  a  specific  time  period,
permanent  reassignment  and  retraining  is  required.   This   never
happened in his case.

The “Stop Roster” error and the four years he was temporarily assigned
outside his career field without retraining cost him  his  chance  for
promotion.  By 1996 he would have been promoted to technical  sergeant
(TSgt) and between 1997 and 2000,  he  would  have  been  promoted  to
master sergeant (MSgt).

In support of his appeal, applicant provides extracts from his medical
and  personnel  records.   As  proof  of  the  “Stop  Roster”  action,
applicant submits a copy of a notification  of  nonrecommendation  for
promotion.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 19  Jan  84  and
was promoted up to the grade  of  SSgt  (E-5).   On  27  Jul  94,  the
applicant was punished under Article 15 for incapacity for the  proper
performance of his duties due to overindulgence in intoxicating liquor
or drugs.  Punishment consisted of a suspended reduction in  grade  to
SrA (E-4), forfeiture of $150 pay per month for  two  months,  and  45
days of extra duty.  The applicant’s records indicate he  was  entered
into the  SART  program  in  1995.   The  applicant  was  subsequently
nonrecommended for promotion for cycle 95E6 by his commander on 27 Oct
95 due to applicant’s entry into the SART program.  The applicant  was
discharged from the Air Force on 31 Jan 00.  The applicant’s  DD  Form
214 indicates he separated with a reenlistment code of “1J,” “Eligible
to reenlist, but elects to separate.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPF makes no recommendation in the applicant’s case.   They  note
there is no Personnel  or  Commander’s  program  that  includes  “Stop
Roster” actions.  The applicant was  denied  promotion  in  accordance
with AFR 39-29, Table 2, line U, paragraph 3, in Oct 95.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAC evaluated  the  applicant’s  claim  that  he  was  assigned
outside  his  career  field  for  four  years  and  should  have  been
retrained.  The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation  to
substantiate his claim he should have been  retrained.   There  is  no
classification or retraining  provision  to  allow  an  individual  to
retrain due to being temporarily assigned outside a career  field  for
four  years.   Additionally,  the  applicant’s   performance   reports
indicate he performed duty as a network administrator in  his  awarded
Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC).  There is nothing in the  applicant’s
documentation or official records to indicate  he  was  ever  assigned
outside his awarded AFSC.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s  request.   Based  on
the applicant’s date of rank to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt), he
was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of technical
sergeant  (TSgt)  five  times.   He  was  ineligible   for   promotion
consideration during cycle 95E6 in accordance with AFR 39-29, Table 2,
Line U (identified as a substantiated substance abuser for other  than
alcohol who has not successfully completed  rehabilitation  under  the
Air Force SART program).

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/JA recommends denial of the applicant’s request.   No  Air  Force
quality force management programs include  the  supposed  Stop  Roster
action the applicant  claims  prevented  his  promotion  opportunities
after he received nonjudicial punishment.  He was properly  considered
for promotion to TSgt (E-6) in his primary AFSC during five  promotion
cycles through 1999 and he was never selected.  He was  nonrecommended
for promotion on 27 Oct 95 for cycle 95E6 pursuant  to  AFR  39-29  as
indicated above.  His records do not support his  contention  that  he
was nonrecommended for promotion during any subsequent promotion cycle
as a result of this alleged Stop Roster action.

The applicant’s claim he should have been afforded the opportunity  to
retrain into another career field because  he  was  performing  duties
outside his primary AFSC for four years is also without merit.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
6 May 05 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date,  a  response
has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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 opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices 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.

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 Docket  Number  BC-2004-
03768 in Executive Session on 15 June 2005, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Dec 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPF, dated 17 Feb 05.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAC, dated 17 Mar 05.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 25 Mar 05.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 3 May 05.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 05.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair