RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00490
		INDEX CODE 131.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show that he was promoted to the grade of Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt/E-8).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There was an E-8 position open at his unit with only two people qualified, another E-7 and himself.  He soon found out that he was not selected for the position.  He feels that he should not have been overlooked, because he was the most qualified and had the better record.  His goal from the beginning was to at least reach the grade of E-8.  He states the wing Inspector General (IG) stated that he was turned down because of weak supervision.  Prior to the position becoming open, he received a “9” on his Airman Performance Report (APR) for supervision.  He does not understand how he could get a “9” rating and be turned down, because he supervised 27 people over the course of 15 years in the Guard.  He has received letters of appreciation from military and civilian jobs for outstanding supervision and work performance.

In support of his appeal, he provided a personal statement, deactivation letters from his unit commander; certificates of training, performance appraisals, and other supporting documentation.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Based on available records, applicant completed 25 years, 3 months and 22 days of total service for pay.  He was credited with 20 years, 2 months and 28 days of satisfactory federal service.  He was promoted to the rank of Master Sergeant (E-7), with a Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 May 1987.  He was transferred to the Retired Reserve effective 1 February 1997.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFRC/DPM reviewed this application and recommended disapproval.  In accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, individuals must meet minimum eligibility requirements to include recommendation by their supervisor and approval by the promotion authority.  Applicant was not recommended for promotion.  In addition, he failed to establish that an injustice took place, as identified by the wing IG memo, dated 12 Jan 97.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 Apr 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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 Force office 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 this application AFBCMR Docket Number 01-00490 in Executive Session on 25 June 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Feb 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/DPM, dated 7 Mar 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Apr 02, w/atchs.