RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01621
                                       INDEX CODE:  108.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                   COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  25 November 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be reinstated to active duty for two years,  promoted  to  chief  master
sergeant (CMSgt) (E-9), and given back pay with an effective date  of  March
2006.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

As a result of  an  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR)  placed  in  her  Personnel
Information File (PIF), she  was  denied  the  opportunity  for  a  two-year
extension of employment when considered by the  Calendar  Year  2006  (CY06)
Year Group Assignment Process (YGAP) and, subsequent promotion to the  grade
of CMSgt.  After she filed  a  complaint  through  the  Air  National  Guard
Inspector  General’s  Office  (ANG/IG)  concerning  abuse  of  authority  by
ANG/OM, the LOR was removed from her records.

In support of her application, the applicant provides a personal  statement;
and  copies  of  CY06  YGAP  documents,  ANG/IG  complaint  documents,   and
Commander-Directed Investigation (CDI) documents.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to  the  Chief  of  Organizational  Support,  Air  National  Guard
Readiness Center, the applicant, while serving in  the  Maryland  ANG  on  a
Title 10 United States Code active duty tour, received an LOR on  8  October
2002 for twice failing her 5 skill level  Career  Development  Course  (CDC)
and failure of her 7 skill level CDC.  On 13 February  2003,  the  applicant
rebutted the LOR; however, the LOR was placed in her  PIF.   On  3  November
2005, the applicant was notified that her records  were  considered  by  the
CY06 YGAP, and that it was recommended  that  she  would  be  projected  for
retirement on her then current date of separation of 30 June 2006.

The applicant filed an AF IMT 102, Inspector  General  Personal  and  Fraud,
Waste & Abuse Complaint, on 18  July  2006,  stating  that  NGB/OM  violated
their  policies  and  procedures  by  never  contacting  or  notifying   the
applicant after she was  interviewed  by  a  selection  board  for  Military
Vacancy Announcement (MVA)  2005-165,  Update  1  for  Executive  to  Chief,
National Guard Chaplain Service.  The IG  complaint  was  determined  to  be
best handled by a CDI.

The CDI substantiated the allegation that ANG/OM  abused  its  authority  by
placing a letter containing adverse  information  regarding  the  applicant,
into her PIF, in violation of  Air  Force  Instruction  (AFI)  90-301.   The
allegation that both ANG/OM and the selection board,  convened  to  consider
MVA  2005-165,  abused  their  authority  by   inappropriately   using   the
applicant’s LOR within the application process, in violation of AFI  90-301,
was substantiated as to ANG/OM  and  unsubstantiated  as  to  the  selection
board.  The allegation that ANG/OM abused its  authority  by  re-advertising
MVA 2005-165 after it was determined  the  applicant  was  first,  the  only
applicant, and then later, the best qualified applicant for the position  in
violation of AFI 90-301 was unsubstantiated.

The Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) indicates the applicant  retired
effective 31 October 2006 in the grade of senior  master  sergeant  with  20
years, 2 months, and 6 days of active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1POF recommends denial of the applicant’s request.   A1POF  states  the
applicant was transferred  to  the  Information  Management/Master  Sergeant
position due to failing to progress in her Air Force Specialty Code  (AFSC).
 This placed her in an overage for that position and allowed her  to  remain
on active duty status until her retirement date.  The applicant  failed  her
5 skill level CDC for the Chaplain’s  Assistant  career  field;  however,  a
waiver was submitted permitting her to remain in the AFSC.   In  July  2001,
she was promoted to senior master  sergeant  (E-8)  while  assigned  to  the
Chaplain’s Assistant AFSC under the Retraining Promotion Program.   Although
she  did  not  hold  the  required  skill  level  in  accordance  with   ANG
Instruction 36-2502, Promotion  of  Airman,  her  supervisor  and  commander
still allowed her to maintain her rank and did  not  push  for  a  demotion.
According to  ANGI  26-2502,  paragraph  2.5.2,  a  member  is  required  to
acquire/maintain the skill level in their assigned  AFSC  commensurate  with
their new grade.  In June 2002, the applicant failed her 7 skill level  CDC.


A1POF states the adverse information filed in the applicant’s  PIF  did  not
prevent  and/or  prohibit  her  promotion  to   CMSgt.    Her   failure   to
acquire/maintain the required skill level in the Chaplain’s  Assistant  AFSC
rendered her ineligible under the  governing  instruction.   While  the  CDI
found the adverse information had been inappropriately entered into the  MVA
2005-165  selection  process,  it  was  determined  the  applicant  was  not
qualified for the position which would have allowed  her  promotion  to  the
grade of CMSGT.  The final announcement and selection for the  Executive  to
Chief, National Guard Chaplin Service was valid.  If the applicant had  been
selected to fill this vacancy, she would not have able to  progress  in  the
required AFSC beyond her  previously  awarded  5  skill  level  due  to  her
failure of the 7 skill level CDC.

The A1POF evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Only someone who was never the subject of discrimination  could  have  the
audacity to suggest the LOR that was placed in her file had no impact upon
her being denied a CMSgt position  and  the  opportunity  to  be  extended
beyond 20 years of active duty service.  ANG/OM is racist  and  unfair  in
the implementation of regulations.  Her claim is that an LOR was placed in
her files, without her knowledge, and was used in the application  process
when she applied for a CMSgt position in the office that she worked in for
more than ten years.  It’s true that she did not pass her  7  skill  level
CDC test, but that by no means hindered her from carrying out  the  duties
and responsibilities that she was tasked to do.  She has  the  information
manager background that none of the other enlisted  members  had  in  that
office; therefore, she was able to fill in and do other’s work, when  they
were out of the office, in order to maintain a level of  high  proficiency
for the office.  She supervised subordinates, wrote  Enlisted  Performance
Reports, and made decisions that the  CMSgt,  who  had  all  the  stripes,
should have made, but was incapable of doing.

When she submitted her appeal to the Board, it was for restitution, not to
have it tried a second time by the “so called subject matter experts” that
are from the same office that committed the impropriety.

The applicant’s rebuttal 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.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of  the  case  and  conclude  that
while evidence confirms the applicant’s LOR was inadvertently placed in  her
PIF, it was not the factor that led to her non-selection for the  MVA  2005-
165 CMSgt position.  The available evidence supports the reason for her non-
selection for retention was the fact she failed to maintain the  appropriate
skill level commensurate with her rank and for the position  for  which  she
applied.   In  view  of  this  finding,  we  agree  with  the  opinions  and
recommendation of  the  Air  Force  advisory  opinion  and  we  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant  has  not  been  the
victim of either an error or an injustice.  In the absence  of  evidence  to
the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting  the  relief
sought in this appeal.

_________________________________________________________________

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 25 September 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Don H. Kendrick, Member
                 Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member


The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2007-01621 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 May 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/A1POF, dated 3 Jul 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jul 07.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 9 Aug 07.




                                  JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
                                                   Panel Chair