RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00077
            INDEX CODE:  131.09

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His retired grade be corrected to show he  retired  in  the  grade  of
captain, at a minimum, or  in  the  grade  of  chief  master  sergeant
(CMSgt).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In April 1982 he had applied for a  commission  in  the  Air  National
Guard (ANG) while assigned to the 155th Weather Flight, Tennessee  ANG
(TNANG).  He was accepted for appointment as a weather officer in  the
grade of 2nd lieutenant.  However,  before  he  could  attend  officer
training school, his civilian position as a meteorologist  experienced
a Reduction in Force (RIF) and he was subsequently transferred to  the
National Weather Service office in Parkersburg, WV.  He was  told  his
commission would be transferred to the Kentucky ANG (KYANG)  and  that
they would schedule him to attend officer training  school.   However,
after the transfer, the KYANG informed him they would  not  honor  the
commission that he had been  approved  for  until  there  was  a  unit
vacancy for a weather officer.  Such a vacancy never occurred while he
was  a  member  of  the  KYANG.   He  eventually  transferred  to  the
Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) program  with  the  Air  Force
Reserve (AFR).  He  continued  to  pursue  a  commission  and  he  was
eventually told arrangements  had  been  made  for  him  to  obtain  a
commission with the Pennsylvania ANG  (PAANG).   However,  during  the
course of applying for a transfer to the PAANG, he was told he was too
old to commission.  Headquarters Air Combat Command (HQ ACC), where he
served as a USAFR IMA (5th Weather Wing), advised him since he  was  a
valued  member  of  their  organization  and  due  to  his   extensive
educational background that they would establish a  much-needed  CMSgt
position he could fill.  He therefore dropped his long campaign for  a
commission and pursued what he considered his  next  best  opportunity
and likely his only alternative for  promotion.   Over  the  next  few
years, he worked on preparing the necessary  documentation  to  define
the requirements for the CMSgt position in the weather  career  field,
detailing the roles, responsibilities and duties of the position.   He
also  submitted  the  requested  information  on  his   military   and
professional  credentials,  education,  and  experience  to  the  USAF
Director of Weather.  Several years passed and by 1997,  his  position
had still not been converted to a CMSgt billet.  He transferred to the
Retired Reserve on 28 January 1998  in  the  grade  of  senior  master
sergeant eligible for Reserve retired pay at  age  60.   He  feels  he
would have achieved, at a minimum, the grade of captain  had  he  been
commissioned as promised and possibly would have advanced to the grade
of either major or lieutenant colonel.  As it  stands,  he  pursued  a
promotion to the grade of CMSgt in lieu of the commission  and  chased
that promise for several years before retiring.  He feels it  is  only
fair and just that his retirement rank be changed to the rank he feels
he was promised, he earned, and  he  rigorously  pursued  only  to  be
unfairly denied.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement, copies  of  the  results  of  his  attempt  to  engage  the
assistance of his Representative, Senator Hatch, his  retired  reserve
order, his original appointment approval, and the package put together
to convert his SMSgt position to a CMSgt position.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant  began  his  military  career  on  26  July  1968.   He  was
progressively promoted to the grade of SMSgt with a date of rank (DOR)
of 1 October 1982.  On 17 August 1982, he was selected for appointment
as a Weather Officer in the grade of second lieutenant (2nd  Lt).   He
was not  commissioned  however,  and  during  the  ensuing  10  years,
management of the Air Weather Service (AWS) fell under the purview  of
HQ ACC.  In June 1992, HQ ACC reviewed requirements for  managing  and
mobilizing weather resources and  found  the  mission  could  best  be
served by establishing and funding a CMSgt IMA  position.   On  7  May
1996, ACC again  tried  to  establish  a  CMSgt  position  within  ACC
responsible for coordinating the efforts  of  ACC-gained  ANG  weather
resources.  It appears the position was not created during the  career
of the applicant and he was  eventually  transferred  to  the  Retired
Reserve effective 28 January 1998, eligible for Reserve retired pay at
age 60 on 30 September 2008.  He had served almost 30  years  and  was
serving in the grade of SMSgt at the  time  of  his  transfer  to  the
Retired Reserve.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/DPP recommends denial.  DPP  contends  Reserve  enlisted  members
retire in the grade they hold on the date of their retirement,  unless
entitled to a higher grade under some other provision  of  law  (Title
10, United States Code, Section 8961).  There is no  documentation  in
his record that verifies he was ever promoted to the grade of CMSgt or
served satisfactorily in that grade.  Further, there is nothing in his
record  that  reflects  he  was  ever  commissioned  or  ever   served
satisfactorily in any officer grade.  He was properly retired  in  the
grade of SMSgt, the highest grade he satisfactorily held.

DPP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
17 March 2006 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date,
this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Force
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.  It appears the applicant has been the  victim  of
unfortunate timing at several times in his career; however,  in  order
to receive retired pay  in  an  officer  grade,  the  member  must  be
commissioned as an officer  and  must  serve  satisfactorily  in  that
grade.   Reserve  enlisted  members  retire  in  the  grade  held   at
retirement  unless  entitled  to  a  higher  grade  under  some  other
provision of law.  There is no evidence he ever served as  an  officer
or as a Chief Master Sergeant.  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-
2006-00077 in Executive Session on 26 April 2006, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
      Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Dec 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPP, dated 13 Mar 06, w/atch.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Mar 06.




                                   JAY H. JORDAN
                                   Panel Chair