RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00735
		INDEX CODE:  131.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

Reinstatement of his Promotion Sequence Number (PSN) 11276.0 for Cycle 99E5 to staff sergeant (E-5), promotions effective Sep 99 - Aug 00.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, statements from his former commander and current commander and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 15 Dec 93.  On 14 Nov 99, he was released from active duty under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Completion of Required Active Service) and transferred to the Air Force Reserve.  He had completed a total of 5 years and 11 months and was serving in the grade of E-4 at the time of separation.  On 12 Jun 01, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of E-4 for a period of 4 years.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application be denied.  DPPPWB stated that the applicant was tentatively selected for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) during Cycle 99E5 per Promotion Sequence Number (PSN) 11276.0, which would have been incremented on 1 May 00.  When the applicant separated in the grade of E-4, before his promotion to E-5 would have been effective, the projected promotion was canceled.  The fact that he enlisted 19 months later does not entitle him to be promoted to E-5, a grade that he was selected for almost 2 years earlier.  With an E-4 date of rank of 15 Dec 96, the applicant will be eligible for promotion consideration to E-5 for the 02E5 cycle (promotions effective 1 Sep 02 - 1 Aug 03).  The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that he was forced to choose separation from the Air Force because he exhausted all his avenues to try to resolve his hardships.  While the Air Force was unwilling to grant him an assignment and the Dependency Certification, he felt that he had no other choice but to sacrifice his promotion and postpone his military career.  The applicant’s complete response 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 filed.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable 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 the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  In view of the above and absent 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 probable 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 02‑00735 in Executive Session on 1 May 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Feb 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 4 Mar 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Mar 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter from applicant, dated 22 Mar 02.