RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02489
            INDEX CODE: 131.05

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  13 Feb 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of rank for promotion to the Reserve grade of master sergeant
be changed from 1 Mar 05 to 1 Nov 03.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was placed in a master sergeant slot pending his completion of  the
Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Academy.  During that time frame, he was
accused of an offense he did not commit.  Even  though  there  was  no
evidence against him, and he was not formally charged,  the  rumor  of
his involvement caused his commander to form a biased opinion of  him.
As  a  result,  he  was  continually  denied  promotion   because   of
appearances.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, several unsigned statements,  documentation  pertaining  to
his recommendation  for  reenlistment,  and  copies  of  his  Enlisted
Performance Report (EPRs).

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 in the Air  Force  Reserve  in  the
grade of master sergeant, with a date of rank of 1 Mar 05.

The remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the  Air
Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommends denial noting  that  enlisted  promotion  requires
occupying a higher graded position, specific  time-in-grade,  time-in-
service, skill-level, completion of  professional  military  education
(PME), satisfactory participation, a recommendation for promotion from
the supervisor through  the  commander,  and  an  endorsement  by  the
promotion authority.  The unit commander coordinates with the unit  of
attachment regarding promotion potential, lines  through  those  names
not recommended for promotion, and briefly states the reasons for non-
recommendation.

According to ARPC/DPB, the applicant was placed  in  a  higher  graded
position with the understanding he would complete the NCO  Academy  in
six (6) months.  Due to a misunderstanding on the part of the member's
unit training manager, the final test was not forwarded to  the  right
location.  Arrangements were made for the member's test to be sent  to
Hurlburt Field, and the applicant completed the NCO Academy on 26  Aug
03.  During this process, the applicant’s commander  elected  to  move
him back into a technical sergeant position, making him ineligible for
promotion.  He was transferred to the USAF Special  Operations  School
on 1 Dec 04 and was promoted on 1 Mar 05.  The applicant  provided  no
documentation  from  either  his  supervisor,  commander,  or  program
manager  to  indicate  he  was  unjustly  denied  promotion   due   to
appearances or any bias on the part of his commander.

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPB evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  16
Sep 05 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force  office  of
primary responsibility (OPR) to deny the applicant’s appeal.  A review
of the available evidence reveals the applicant was placed in a master
sergeant  position  pending  completion  of  the  NCO  Academy.    The
applicant has provided documentation indicating he was placed  in  the
higher graded position with the understanding he  had  six  months  to
complete the NCO Academy or someone  else  would  be  moved  into  the
position.   However,  we  note  the  documentation  provided  by   the
applicant  regarding  this  matter  was  unsigned.   Nevertheless,  it
appears that during  the  process  he  was  removed  from  the  master
sergeant position and moved into a technical sergeant  position.   The
applicant contends he was accused of an offense he did not commit, and
that the rumor of his alleged involvement resulted in his  commander’s
biased opinion of him and the commander’s denial of his  promotion  to
master sergeant.  In our opinion, the applicant has failed to  sustain
his burden that he has suffered  either  an  error  or  an  injustice.
Other than his assertions, no evidence has been presented before  this
Board as to the reason the applicant’s commander removed him from  the
master sergeant position, which rendered him ineligible for an earlier
promotion to master sergeant.  Given the presumption of regularity  on
the  part  of  the  military,  we  do  not  believe  the   applicant’s
uncorroborated assertions are sufficient to conclude  his  commander’s
actions were improper and without validity.  In view of the foregoing,
and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we find  no
compelling basis to recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.  However, if the applicant were  to  provide  appropriate
documentation, to include signed statements, that  he  was  improperly
removed from the master sergeant position, we  would  be  inclined  to
reconsider his appeal.

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 30 Nov 05, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2005-02489 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Aug 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 13 Sep 05.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Sep 05.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair