RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01693
                             INDEX CODE: 131.03, 111.02
                             COUNSEL:  None

                             HEARING DESIRED:  No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 Nov 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered and promoted to the grade of master  sergeant  (MSgt)
while serving on a 2003-2005 tour of duty as an Active  Guard  Reserve
(AGR) member (Title 10, USC, Section 12310).

[Note:  The applicant also challenges the Enlisted Performance  Report
(EPR) for  the  period  8 Apr  03  through  7 Apr  04,  but  does  not
specifically ask that it be removed or upgraded.]

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was unfairly treated and unjustly denied promotion.  The  7 Apr  04
EPR  was  administered   inappropriately   and   against   Air   Force
guidelines/instructions.  The  additional  rater,  Chief  A,  was  his
initial supervisor before  the  rater,  MSgt  C.   After  about  three
months, he felt a “disconnect” with them.  His rater rarely  spoke  to
him, the additional rater embarrassed him in front of others, and both
had no confidence in his abilities.  An initial  feedback  session  to
establish clear-cut expectations within the first 60 days of his  tour
and another session six months after the EPR  were  not  accomplished.
During his last 30 months with this Agency, he never received feedback
stating he was ineligible for promotion.  Consequently, he believed he
met all expectations in completing assigned duties and tasks, as  well
as  time-in-grade  (TIG),  time-in-service  (TIS),  and   professional
military education (PME).   Both  times  when  he  inquired,  Chief  A
personally told him he would be promoted  to  MSgt.   However,  a  co-
worker told him the Chief confided to her that he “didn’t  deserve  to
be promoted” but gave no reason why.  He was criticized without  being
given  constructive  advice.   The  only  thing  he  wanted  for   his
retirement was a shadow box, but MSgt C told him he would not  receive
one.  As of his last day,  no  congratulatory  remarks  regarding  his
retirement were expressed by either evaluator.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserves on 15 Jan 82 and  was
ultimately  promoted  to  the  grade  of  technical  sergeant   (TSgt)
effective 1 Apr 98.

By HQ Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) Special Order AB-132,  dated
2 Apr  02,  the  applicant  was  ordered  to  extended   active   duty
(voluntary), effective 8 Apr 02, as  an  Active  Guard  Reserve  (AGR)
member in accordance with Title 10, USC, Section 12310,  for  4  years
and 22 days unless sooner relieved, and  assigned  to  the  Air  Force
Review  Boards  Agency  (AFRBA)  at  Andrews  AFB,  MD,  as  the  Non-
Commissioned Officer-In-Charge (NCOIC), Executive  Support.   In  this
capacity, he was a Reservist on active duty and remained under the Air
Force Reserve promotion  system.   For  airmen  who  meet  eligibility
requirements, the immediate supervisor recommends promotion on AF Form
224, Recommendation and  Authorization  for  Promotion  of  Airman  as
Reserve of the Air Force.  The Form  is  submitted  to  the  immediate
commander and, if  the  member  is  selected,  the  recommendation  is
forwarded to the appropriate promotion authority  for  approval.   The
position to which the applicant was assigned  was  authorized  a  MSgt
grade.

The applicant’s EPRs are provided at Exhibit B.   From  14 Jun  82  to
26 May 89, all of his reports reflect an  overall  rating  of  9,  the
highest level under the “old” system.   His  EPRs  under  the  current
system are as follows:

            PERIOD ENDING    OVERALL EVALUATION

                 27 Oct 89              5
                  3 Jun 90              3
                  3 Jun 91              3
                  4 Oct 91              4
                  4 Oct 92              4
                  4 Oct 93              4
                  4 Oct 94              5
                 30 May 95              5
                 30 May 96              5
                 22 Jul 01              5
                 *7 Apr 03              3
                 *7 Apr 04              3

* According to the 7 Apr  03  EPR,  Chief A  was  the  rater  and  the
Director, AFRBA, was the additional rater.  The report  indicates  the
last feedback session was accomplished on 15 Dec 02,  and  in  Section
VI, the additional rater comments that the applicant earned a  Masters
Degree in Procurement  &  Acquisition.   According  to  the  7 Apr  04
report, MSgt C was the rater and Chief A  was  the  additional  rater.
The EPR indicates the last feedback session was  conducted  on  15 Dec
03.  The performance factors in Section III are rated the same on both
EPRs.

The applicant retired in the grade of  TSgt  on  1 Feb  05,  after  20
years, 9 months and 23 days of active service.  He also had  2  years,
11 months, and 25 days of inactive service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  ARPC/DPB  advises  that  an  enlisted   AGR   promotion   requires
recommendation by the individual’s supervisor using AF Form 224.  This
is accomplished for members who meet all eligibility criteria found in
AFI 36-2502, Table 4.2.   Although  the  applicant  met  most  of  the
eligibility criteria, his supervisor did not complete AF Form 224.  He
was not recommended for promotion,  which  is  the  final  eligibility
requirement found in Table 4.2.  Promotion is not a  reward  for  past
service but rather an advancement based on past performance and future
potential.  As regards the feedback/EPR issue, AFI 36-2402, para. 2.10
indicates a  rater’s  failure  to  conduct  a  required  or  requested
feedback session, or document the session on  a  performance  feedback
worksheet (PFW) does not inherently invalidate a subsequent EPR.   The
applicant has not  provided  additional  reason  or  documentation  to
invalidate his last EPR. Therefore, recommend the appeal be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He should have received an initial and follow-up feedback session  per
AF  Instructions  and  guidelines.   He  never   received   day-to-day
feedback.  Through most of 2004, both raters almost never spoke a word
to him except through e-mail.  He questions the EPR’s reporting dates,
contending he arrived at the agency on 8 Apr 02 and the report  should
be backdated to 2002.  He asserts his receiving a Master’s  Degree  in
May 02 was omitted from the contested EPR, as were  other  significant
contributions.  [Note:  The EPR for the period 8 Apr 02 through  7 Apr
03 does mention  his  earning  a  Master’s  Degree  in  Procurement  &
Acquisition in the additional rater’s  comments  (Section  VI)  -  See
Statement of Facts above and EPRs at Exhibit B.]

A complete copy of applicant’s response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded he should be promoted to MSgt  or  that  the  7 Apr  04  EPR
should be altered in any way.  The applicant’s  contentions  are  duly
noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and
by themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the  rationale
provided by the Air Force.  While we are  willing  to  allow  for  the
possibility that  the  relationship  between  the  applicant  and  his
evaluators may have been strained,  he  has  not  established  to  our
satisfaction  that  he  was  incorrectly  rated  or  unjustly   denied
promotion  to  MSgt.   The  7 Apr  03  and  7 Apr  04  EPRs   indicate
performance feedback sessions were accomplished in Dec 03 and  Dec 04,
respectively.  The applicant does not appear to take  issue  with  the
7 Apr 03 EPR, even though it  reflects  the  same  performance  factor
ratings and overall evaluation as the contested  report.   He  asserts
the 7 Apr 04 EPR did not include his achievements, such as his earning
his Master’s Degree in Procurement & Acquisition.   However,  we  note
this accomplishment was mentioned by the additional rater in the 7 Apr
03 report.  The  applicant  may  have  met  most  of  the  eligibility
criteria for promotion, but he has not convinced us  that  his  rating
chain was wrong in not endorsing him for promotion  to  the  grade  of
MSgt.  We can understand the applicant’s disappointment in  not  being
recommended for promotion; however, neither the evidence of record nor
his submission has established that he suffered  either  an  error  or
injustice.  In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 4 August 2005 under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member
                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-01693 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 May 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPB, dated 3 Jun 05.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Jun 05.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair