RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01077
		INDEX CODE: 131.00 

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His promotion date verification record (DVR) for promotion cycle 01E9 be corrected to reflect his current assignment level status.

_________________________________________________________________

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.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB states that the applicant’s HQ Air Force Selection Folder reflects the duty level on his Senior NCO Evaluation Brief as “Student” instead of “Wing/Base” as it should.  The fact he was a First Sergeant was shown on the brief.  In addition, his last Senior Enlisted Performance Report closing 12 March 2001 shows his duty title as First Sergeant and what his duties as a First Sergeant were.  The rater refers to him as the “perfect First Sergeant”, the additional rater refers to him as “number one first Sergeant he had seen in 24 years,” and the Senior Rater states he was the 62nd Airlift Wing First Sergeant of the year.”  They note there was absolutely no doubt when the evaluation board members reviewed the applicant’s record and assigned the 360.00 board score, it was with full knowledge that his level of duty was not a student.

AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 2.5, 20 August 2001, outlines the reasons for supplemental promotion consideration.  The level of duty assignement that is in error is not considered (based on input from board members) as something so significant that it would warrant supplemental consideration.  They state that this is especially true in this case as it is evident the correct level of duty assignment is either base or wing.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.  A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 26 April 2002, a complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 

_________________________________________________________________

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.  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 Staff 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 on 12 June 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Mar 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 8 Apr 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Apr 02.