RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00851
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  10 Sep 06


__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be advanced to the grade of chief master sergeant (CMSgt) as of 1
Jul 05 or in the alternative be granted a direct commission  in  the
grade of captain in the Air Force Reserve.

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The charge to the CMSgt/SMSgt promotion board in the  seventies  was
highly prejudicial and discriminatory to  him  because  he  had  not
graduated from the Senior NCO Academy.  He would have been  promoted
if the requirement had been to graduate from either college  or  the
NCO Academy.  He applied to attend the NCO Academy but  was  refused
because he had already been  permitted  to  attend  college  through
Operation Bootstrap for eight months and because his unit would  not
release him due to his status as a  Counter  Intelligence  Espionage
Case Officer and military requirements within Southeast Asia at  the
time.  He was past the age of 35 when he graduated from  college  so
he could not attend Officer Candidate School.  Age waivers were only
being given to Blacks  and  Hispanics  and  he  did  not  meet  that
criterion.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  applicant  submits  copies   of   his
performance reports for the last 10 years of his career, a  copy  of
his results on the supervisor’s exam, a copy of his college  degree,
copies of his DD Form 214, and selected retirement documents.

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the New York Air National Guard on      17
May 53 and served until 5 Oct 55.  On 6 Oct 55, he enlisted  in  the
active Air Force and served until his retirement  in  the  grade  of
master sergeant (MSgt) (E-7) effective 1 Jul 75.  A  resume  of  the
applicant’s last ten performance reports follows:

      Closeout Date                     Overall Rating

   *8 Nov 67                      Highest 10%
  **9 Nov 67                            9
   27 Jun 69                            9
   24 Mar 70                            9
   02 Aug 70                            9
   02 Aug 71                            9
   27 Dec 71                            9
   27 Dec 72                            9
   27 Dec 73                            9
   27 Dec 74                            9

*Evaluation system rated based on relative value of the ratee to the
Air Force compared with others.

**Start of evaluation system based on scale of 0-9.

__________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the applicant’s request for promotion to  the
grade of CMSgt be time barred, but if considered by the Board it  be
denied.  They cannot verify whether the applicant was considered for
promotion to the grade of SMSgt as promotion history files are  only
maintained for ten years.  However, based on the applicant’s date of
rank (DOR) to the grade of master sergeant (MSgt) and other  minimum
criteria, he was eligible  for  consideration.   Completion  of  the
Senior  NCO  Academy  was  not  an  eligibility  requirement.    The
applicant was never promoted to the grade  of  SMSgt  and  there  is
nothing in his record to indicate an error  or  injustice  was  made
that prevented his promotion.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPB recommends denial of the applicant’s requests.   Since  30
or more  years  have  passed  since  the  applicant  was  considered
eligible for promotion by a board held at the  Air  Force  Selection
Board Secretariat, they do not have the data directly related to the
boards for which he was eligible readily  available.   They  surmise
that based on the applicant’s DOR he met SMSgt evaluation boards  in
1972, 1973, 1974, and  1975,  unless  he  declined  testing  or  was
otherwise made ineligible  for  promotion.   The  applicant  alleges
these evaluation boards would not consider anyone for  promotion  if
they were not an NCO Academy graduate.   His  allegation  implies  a
degree  of  standardization  in  the  application  of   Professional
Military Education (PME) information within the board process.   The
completion  of  PME  was  not  an  eligibility   requirement.    The
information regarding completion was available for board members  to
consider along with a host of other factors.  Although the applicant
asserts he was not considered for promotion because of  the  academy
requirement, their  history  files  do  not  indicate  that  academy
completion has ever been a requirement to meet the senior NCO board.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluations,  the  applicant  notes
that he was eligible for promotion during the senior master sergeant
boards held in 1972, 1973, 1974, and 1975.  He also states  that  he
did not decline testing and references the score of 92  he  obtained
on the Supervisor’s test, dated Mar 71.  He notes that the  Weighted
Airman Promotion System (WAPS) was not in effect at that time.

The applicant indicates agreement with  the  statement  in  the  Air
Force evaluations that  the  history  files  do  not  indicate  that
Academy completion has ever been a requirement to  meet  the  Senior
NCO board.  However, the issue to him is that although it was not  a
requirement, there was a unilateral decision  within  the  promotion
board  to  make  academy  completion  an  additional  criterion  for
selection.  He again references the conversation  he  had  with  his
commander after the commander had served on a Senior  NCO  promotion
board.  The applicant reiterates his claim that the promotion boards
in the seventies were highly prejudicial and discriminatory  to  him
and kept him from attaining the grades of senior  and  chief  master
sergeant.

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

__________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request,  ARPC/DPR  provided  an  additional
advisory to address the applicant’s alternative request for a direct
commission.  They recommend denial of the applicant’s request.

Since 30 years or more have passed since the applicant retired  from
the Air Force, there is no record of his having ever applied  for  a
regular commission while serving on active duty.  They screened  the
applicant’s request in accordance with  the  current  directive  and
find the applicant  ineligible  for  an  appointment  as  a  reserve
officer due to age and on the retired rolls of any of the  uniformed
services.  They also note there are no direct appointments for  line
officers.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit G.

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  the
applicant on 7 Jul 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.

__________________________________________________________________

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-2005-
00851 in Executive Session on 30 August 2005, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. B J White-Olson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
      Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Mar 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 18 Apr 05.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPB, dated 23 May 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 May 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Jun 05.
    Exhibit G.  Memorandum, ARPC/DPR, dated 28 Jun 05.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 Jul 05.




                                   B J WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair