RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03053
            INDEX CODE:  131.09

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show he was promoted to the Reserve  grade
of senior master sergeant (SMSgt) effective and with a  date  of  rank
(DOR) of 6 February 2004.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been promoted to SMSgt within one  week  of  6 February
2004 but a change to Texas Air National Guard (TXANG) promotion policy
prohibited the promotion from taking place before  he  was  disability
retired as a master sergeant (MSgt).  The policy  called  for  vacancy
announcements to be advertised  throughout  the  state,  however,  the
promotion board that selected him for promotion to SMSgt was not aware
of the policy change.  When the error was found the position  was  re-
advertised around the state even though the  applicant  was  the  only
qualified member due to the fact that the Dallas ANG unit is the  only
unit that flies C-130’s.  Regardless, the  re-advertisement  made  his
promotion board results null and void and,  due  to  deployments,  the
next promotion board was not to be held for another six  months.   The
promotion board was finally held on 7  July  2004  and  he  was  again
selected for promotion to the grade of SMSgt.  The promotion was again
shelved as he had been on a temporary  profile  (4-T)  for  wounds  he
received in a combat zone.  The State HQ based  their  denial  of  his
promotion on ANG Instruction (ANGI)  36-2502,  wherein  it  is  stated
members on  4-P  (permanent)  medical  status  are  not  eligible  for
promotion consideration.  He argued the fact he was on 4-T status  and
the Instruction specified 4-P status but the State HQ justified  their
denial by stating the 4-P was a “typo” and  actually  read  4-T.   The
National Guard Bureau (NGB) finally resolved the issue  and  confirmed
the Instruction as correct to read 4-P’s as  not  being  eligible  for
promotion.  However, the State HQ still opposed his promotion  due  to
an impending medical evaluation board (MEB).   He  filed  a  complaint
through his congresswoman and did not find relief.  He then  filed  an
Inspector General (IG) complaint and  found  no  relief  through  that
avenue either.  While he has shown he could have been  promoted  while
in a 4-T status (prior to MEB in December 2004), in fact he  had  been
selected twice and denied after selection twice.   A  great  injustice
has been done to him and to  other  members  in  the  TXANG  who  find
themselves in the same position.  He notes a fellow unit member,  also
on 4-T status but not as a result of combat, was promoted  –  and  she
was  not  able  to  deploy  with  the  unit  to   Operation   Enduring
Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF).  While  his  unit  contends
members meeting MEB’s will be on hold  (regarding  promotion)  pending
the results of the MEB, he notes the Instruction states this hold only
applies to those undergoing an MEB and not to those in  a  4-T  status
waiting for an MEB to convene.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement and several attachments.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a retired former member of the  TXANG,  began  military
service on 15 January 1980.  He  was  progressively  promoted  to  the
grade of master sergeant with an effective and DOR of  20  June  1997.
The evidence of record shows he  was  being  considered  for  position
vacancy (PV) promotion to the grade of SMSgt on or about 30 July 2004.
 He underwent an MEB on 2 December 2004 wherein he was diagnosed  with
degenerative  changes  to  his  right  and   left   wrists,   Meralgia
Paresthetica of his left thigh, Lumbar Facet Arthropathy, and  Chronic
Otitis Medica with Effusion of his right ear.  His case  was  referred
to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).  On 26 July 2005, he
was found unfit for continued military service and  the  Secretary  of
the Air Force (SECAF) recommended he be  permanently  retired  with  a
total combined disability rating of 30%.  Effective 30 August 2005, he
was  relieved  from  his  assignment  with  the  TXANG  and  effective
31 August  2005,  he  was  permanently  disability  retired   with   a
compensable rating of 30%.  He had 25 years, 7 months, and 15 days  of
combined Reserve and Regular Air Force service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1POF recommends denial.  A1POF contends he was  denied  promotion
on 6 February 2004 by the TXANG as he  was  ineligible  in  accordance
with ANGI 36-2502, Promotion of  Airmen,  and  Air  Force  Instruction
(AFI) 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for  Air  National
Guard and Air Force Reserve Members.  He  was  placed  in  P4T  status
because he was deemed not qualified for worldwide duty  and  therefore
not eligible for promotion consideration as he  was  being  considered
for continued service or possible separation.  ANGI 36-2502  states  a
member is ineligible for promotion if being  processed  or  considered
for involuntary separation in accordance with AFI 36-3209.

A1POF’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states his first denial for promotion in February  2004  was
due to a clerical error at the unit Military Personnel  Flight  (MPF).
At that time he was on extended active duty with a 4-T rating and  not
a P4-T rating as indicated in the ANG advisory.  He was being  treated
for combat injuries he received in the middle east and was  not  being
considered for involuntary  separation  as  is  also  claimed  in  the
advisory.  The MEB was not considered until October 2004 and  was  not
convened until December 2004.  Further, his promotion was approved and
then denied twice before the MEB convened.

Applicant’s complete evaluation 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 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  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.  He was not denied promotion
because of his physical status but because he was being considered for
continued service and possible  involuntary  separation  for  physical
disability in accordance with ANGI 36-2502 and Air  Force  Instruction
(AFI) 36-3209.  His argument he should have been promoted as  the  MEB
had not yet convened at the time he was recommended  does  not  negate
the fact he was not worldwide qualified at the time and was facing  an
MEB that would  ultimately  find  him  unfit  for  continued  military
service.  That said, we note promotions are not based as much on  past
performance as they are on future potential to continue  to  serve  in
the higher grade.  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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-03053 in Executive Session on 16 May 2006, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Sep 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, NGB/A1POF, dated 3 Apr 06.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Apr 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Apr 06.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair