RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02945
            INDEX CODE:  131.09

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted  to  the  grade  of  master  sergeant  (MSgt)  with  an
effective and date of rank of 1 January 2002.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He applied for the Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC) position
of his base’s Engine Management shop.  On  9  December  2001,  he  was
notified he had not been selected for the position.  He found out  who
had been selected for the job and began to raise questions  about  the
selection process as he believed the selectee  to  be  unqualified  by
State and Federal regulations to hold  the  position.   He  began  his
complaint through his local chain-of-command and found no relief.   He
met with the Wing Inspector General (WG/IG) and was told no less  than
five times not to file a complaint.  He continued the process and  the
WG/IG  eventually  investigated  seven  allegations  brought  by   the
applicant alleging the hiring process to be unfair.  The  WG/IG  found
the first six  allegations  to  be  unsubstantiated  and  the  seventh
allegation to be  substantiated.   On  24  July  2002,  he  filed  his
complaint with the State of Connecticut IG (CT IG).  He called the  CT
IG several times over the next few months to check the progress of his
complaint.  Each time he was told it was being worked.  During a  call
in October 2002, he was told the CT  IG  was  retiring  and  that  his
complaint had been given to the new CT IG who had his package at  home
and was reviewing it.  He called again in July 2003 and  was  told  by
the CT IG his case had been resolved four weeks earlier but the IG had
not had the time to call him.  He visited the CT IG the same  day  and
asked for a copy of his complaint package.  He was told there  was  no
complaint package only a copy of the WG/IG’s  findings.   He  informed
the CT IG he would send him a copy of his original complaint  and  the
CT IG agreed to look at it.  He did so and called  in  September  2003
for the status of his complaint and was  told  it  had  not  yet  been
addressed and might not be for some time.   He  happened  to  read  an
article in a military publication that explained how the IG  complaint
system worked.  The article contained the name  and  email  of  an  IG
representative that readers could contact with questions.  He  emailed
the point of contact  (POC)  with  his  claim  of  possible  complaint
mismanagement and a summarized chronology of his  original  complaint.
The POC returned his email and informed him he was handing  his  email
off to a colleague who would get in touch with him.  When the new  POC
finally contacted him, it was only to affirm that  the  State  IG  was
working his complaint.  He informed  the  POC  that  he  had  received
nothing but the brush off from his local and State  IG  offices.   Two
days later, he received a Summary letter  from  the  CT  IG  that  was
nothing more than a personal attack on his character.  He  feels  this
was the second time his efforts at redress  with  the  IG  system  had
failed.  He  notes  he  included  a  military  technician  performance
appraisal for the period 1 April 2000 to 31 May 2001 with his original
complaint and has not received another  performance  appraisal  since,
not even when he left his military technician position.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement, and copies of pertinent email trails, the CT IG’s Review of
Report  of  Investigation  (ROI)  dated  23  Sep  03,  a  Results   of
Investigation provided by the  WG/IG  dated  25  April  2002,  several
letters addressed  to  his  local  chain-of-command,  certificates  of
training, performance appraisals, a letter from  his  chain-of-command
addressing his contentions dated 10 Feb 02, the vacancy  announcement,
his application and resume, and copies of several Air  National  Guard
Instructions (ANGI’s) and State Instructions.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a  former  fulltime  military  technician  and  retired
member of the  Connecticut  Air  National  Guard  (CTANG),  began  his
military career on 16 May 1983.  He rose through  the  ranks  and  was
eventually promoted  to  the  grade  of  technical  sergeant  with  an
effective and date of rank of 4 November 1995.

On 23  July  2002  he  requested  a  review  of  his  unit’s  original
investigation and findings concerning allegations of discrimination by
a selection Board.  The original CT/IG had retired and his request was
addressed by the current CT/IG.  Applicant was notified  that  six  of
the seven allegations he had made were unsubstantiated.   The  seventh
allegation was substantiated by the  CT/IG.   The  seventh  allegation
required that the individual selected (fulltime  military  technician)
would  have  to  be  in  an  AFSC  compatible  with  the  duties   and
responsibilities of the position.  The CT/IG found that the result  of
the selection board in not selecting the applicant was supportable and
fair.

On 2 February 2005, he was retired and awaits Reserve Retired  pay  at
age 60.  He retired in the grade of technical sergeant  after  serving
for 21 years.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPFOC recommends denial.   DPFOC  contends  the  applicant  was  a
fulltime military technician that applied for a Traditional  Guardsman
position.   Consequently,  the  fulltime  vacancy   announcement   and
selection processes did not apply.  While he is correct,  and  the  IG
affirmed, that the selectee’s Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was  not
compatible with the job he was selected for, the selectee was  also  a
fulltime military technician and resigned from  his  fulltime  job  to
accept the Traditional position.   Further,  DPFOC  notes  there  were
several merit factors other than AFSC/work  experience  the  selection
board considered in determining the best qualified applicant which the
IG confirmed in their response to him.  DPFOC notes that even were  he
selected  for  the  position  himself,  he  would  not  be  guaranteed
promotion to MSgt, only guaranteed the potential to be promoted.

DPFOC’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant contends the following  questions,  in  view  of  the  DPFOC
advisory, should be addressed:

   a. Was the selected individual eligible  to  apply  for  the  2R171
      position as stated in applicable regulations at the time?
   b. Did the selected individual meet the minimum  AFSC  requirements
      as listed in application regulations at the time?
   c.  Was  the  selection  process  implemented  in  accordance  with
      applicable regulations at the time?

Applicant contends the answer to the above questions is no.  He  notes
the DPFOC advisory states the selectee resigned  his  fulltime  Budget
Analyst position in order to qualify for selection  to  the  position.
He  contends  the  selectee  did  not  resign  his  fulltime  military
technician position but remained in his  fulltime  position  until  at
least April 2004 when the applicant resigned  from  his  own  fulltime
position.  Regarding his contention that military  State  and  federal
regulations were violated during the selection process, he  notes  the
State IG informed him that selection boards could chose  any  criteria
they wanted in their selection process.  He questions that  logic  and
asks where the tailoring of criteria  for  vacant  positions  end  and
further contends that as a result, use of selection criteria  in  this
manner could lead to gender or race discrimination.  He reiterates his
experience and AFSC at the time would have qualified him for selection
to the position in question and that had the selection process  worked
the way it should’ve, he would have been promoted to master  sergeant.
His hope is that someone will actually apply the appropriate State and
federal military regulations against the  selection  process  in  this
case and realize a grave injustice has been committed.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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  opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  Air
National  Guard  office  of  primary  responsibility  and  adopt   its
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.  Not only does it appear  he
was not eligible to apply as, at a minimum, he did not meet  the  rank
requirements clearly stated on the vacancy announcement, but there  is
no guarantee selectee’s  to  positions  with  higher  grades  will  be
promoted to that grade.  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  issue(s)   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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-02945  in  Executive  Session  on  18  January  2006,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:



      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
      Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Sep 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ANG/DPFOC, dated 14 Nov 05.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Dec 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Jan 06.



                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair