RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00167
            INDEX CODE:  131.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be given supplemental promotion  consideration  for  the  98E7  promotion
cycle and entitlement to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes that he should have been  promoted  to  master  sergeant  (MSgt)
while assigned outside his career field for six years (Jul 95  to  Jul  01).
He was assigned outside his career field  without  authorization,  approval,
and/or a  waiver  in  accordance  with  AFI  36-2101,  Classifying  Military
Personnel and the Personnel Services Delivery Handbook.

As a result, he believes he was unfairly  placed  at  a   disadvantage  that
severely affected his chances to excel and be promoted to MSgt.

He questioned his assignment initially  and  for  six  years  tried  to  get
reassigned within his old flight  but  was  always  told  there  was  not  a
position available.

He only recently discovered that he could request a  review  and  update  of
his military records.

In support of his request, the applicant  provided  statements  in  his  own
behalf, copies of his enlisted  performance  reports  (EPRs)  from  1995  to
2000, and a Stripes for Exceptional Performers (STEP) nomination package.


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

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served for a period of 20 years and 29 days  and  was  retired
on 30 Jun 01.


The applicant’s DD Form  214,  Certificate  of  Release  or  Discharge  from
Active Duty, reflects he held the Air Force  Specialty  Code  (AFSC)  2W171,
Aircraft Armament Systems for 20 years.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAA recommends denial.  A  review  of  each  of  his  EPRs  identifies
duties relating to the 2W1 AFSC, Aircraft Armament  Systems.   Although  the
applicant’s performance reports show he  worked  in  the  2W0  career  field
(Munitions Systems in  Munitions  Control),  he  was  still  performing  2W1
duties.  This is no  different  than  2W1  personnel  working  in  the  Wing
Operations Center worldwide or 2W1s performing as a Weapons Safety  Manager.
 Working with Standard, Tank, Rack,  Adapter,  Pylon  and  Package  (STRAPP)
assets are referenced in each of his EPRs; these are the  primary  equipment
utilized by 2W1s to ensure munitions  release  from  aircraft.   Duties  and
tasks  performed  by  2W1  personnel  are  referenced  in  the  rater’s  and
indorser’s comment blocks in each EPR and in the nomination for award.

The complete AFPC/DPAA opinion is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOE  recommends  denial.   The  applicant  provides   no   supporting
documentation (manning documents/unit manpower document) indicating  he  was
ever officially assigned to any AFSC other than 2W1X1.   There  is  also  no
indication that he ever questioned which AFSC he  was  to  test  for  to  be
considered for promotion.   This  would  have  been  done  at  the  time  he
received and signed for his study material and test dates.  DPSOE states  he
was properly tested and considered in the correct career AFSC.


The complete AFPC/DPSOE opinion is at Exhibit D.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The  applicant  states  that  99.9  percent  of   his   daily   duties   and
responsibilities were 2W0 related  and  it  was  difficult  to  work  in  an
environment which he did not belong in  and  had  no  experience  or  formal
training in.  He received minimal assistance and training and  the  training
he did receive came from on-the-job (OJT) training. He states  it  was  very
difficult to ask the 2W0s to train him.

He states he was always challenged by the 2W0s and  his  biggest  challenges
were the junior and senior noncommissioned officers.

He states that the AFPC/DPPA opinion fails to mention that his primary  duty
title of Munitions Control, Noncommissioned Officer in  Charge  (NCOIC),  is
only assigned to a 2W0 AFSC and the key duties, tasks, and  responsibilities
describe the primary duties directly related to  the  2W0  AFSC.   Also  not
mentioned was that the position itself was slotted for a  2W0  as  shown  on
the unit manning  personnel  roster  (UMPR)  and/or  unit  manning  document
(UMD).  He states there were several  2W0s  assigned  to  the  squadron  who
could have been placed in the position.

He states his  primary  duties  were  of  a  2WO,  he  only  supervised  2W0
personnel, and he  was  being  evaluated  on  a  daily  basis  on  his  duty
performance by a 2W0 supervisor.   He states he was taken out and  separated
from the daily operations, duties, functions,  and  environment  of  a  2W1.
His primary duties directly related to the 2WO career field only.

He states there were no positions at his assigned unit  for  a  2W1  Quality
Assurance Inspector.  He learned all required  duties  and  functions  which
were  documented  on  his  AF   Form   797,   Job   Qualification   Standard
Continuation/Command (JQS).  He questions why he was never  rotated  out  of
the Munitions Control Flight, why he was not assigned primary  duties  as  a
Quality Control Assurance Inspector and augmentee for the Munitions  Control
Flight, and why a 2W0 technical sergeant was not assigned as  the  Munitions
Control NCOIC.


The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit F.

_______________________________________________________________

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.   Although  we  note
the applicant was assigned  outside  his  AFSC  as  indicated  in  his  STEP
nomination, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air  Force
offices of primary responsibility and adopt their  rationale  as  the  basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim  of  an  error
or injustice.  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  Docket  Number  BC-2008-00167
in Executive Session on 11 June 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Mr. Steven A. Cantrell, Member
      Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 18 Dec 07.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAA, dated 11 Mar 08.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 8 Apr 08.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 08.
    Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, w/atchs, dated
                2 May 08.



                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair