RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00676
		INDEX CODE:  131.09
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The date of rank (DOR) and effective date of his promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant be changed to reflect 24 Aug 01, rather than 1 Feb 02; and that he receive all back pay and allowances thereof.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was recommended for promotion by a promotion board on 24 Aug 01.  He was informed the next day that a control grade was not available and that he could not get promoted until a control grade became available. He was promoted 5 months later.  

In support of his request applicant provided a copy of his promotion order and a memorandum notifying him of his promotion board.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Based on data extracted from the personnel data system it appears that the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 Dec 86 and was separated on 24 Jan 90.  He entered the Air National Guard on 20 Apr 90 as an Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) member and has been progressively promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Feb 02. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPFP reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial. DPFP states that the multi state unit is allocated 21 E-8 slots, which are, controlled grades.  19 Slots were occupied, 2 were used to promote individuals who met the promotion board prior to August 2001.  The additional allocation received in May 2001, was used to promote an individual who had previously met the promotion board.

His unit planned on promoting him using an upcoming allocation based on a member’s retirement, which was August 2001.  Unfortunately, the other unit within the state held a promotion board and used the allocation during the same time of his promotion board.  He could not be promoted because a controlled grade was not available.  Controlled grades cannot be held for an individual and are used on a first come first serve basis.  Active Guard Reserve (AGR) members cannot be promoted unless the state has a controlled grade available.  An allocation was not available for the applicant until February 2002, at which time he was promoted.  The DPFP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that the control grade roster provided by DPFP is from April 2001 and does not reflect the information that it should.  He asks whether the monthly report from August should be used since that was the month in which he was to be promoted.  The control grade roster should have reflected one additional control grade based on the retirement of an individual in another ANG unit, which would have left an extra vacancy available.  This would reflect an error on the part of the monthly control grade report.  DPFP states that control grades cannot be held for members.  If you look at the report submitted, it clearly shows promotions and separations and queue needs.  If they cannot be held then why does the list reflect such holdings for future promotions.

His complete submission 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.  In this regard, the applicant was recommended for promotion by a promotion board in August 2001.  However, based on the promotion criteria for Title 32 AGRs, the applicant could not be promoted until a controlled grade became available.  Therefore, after a thorough review of the applicant's submission, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air National Guard office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that he has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive 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 02-00676 in Executive Session on 18 Jul 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Feb 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ANG/DPFP, dated 30 May 02.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Jun 02.