RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC 2002-01374
		
	 	COUNSEL:  

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  He receive back pay from March 1998 to March 2002.

2.  He be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant and retired in the grade of technical sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 28 September 2001, a HQs --th Fighter Wing (ACC) special court-martial decided that “all rights, privileges, and property of which he was deprived due to the sentence that was set aside will be restored”.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, Exhibits C and D.

His Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) rendered since 1990, reflect the following ratings:

          PERIOD ENDING               RATING

           14 Mar 1990                  5
           14 Mar 1991                  4
           14 Mar 1992                  4
           26 Jan 1993                  3
           26 Jan 1994                  5
           26 Jan 1995                  5
           26 Jan 1996                  5
           26 Jul 1996                  5
           26 Jul 1997                  5

_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
  
AFLSA/JAJM reviewed this application and states that no further military justice action is necessary regarding the disposition of the applicant’s claims.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA also reviewed this application and indicates that the applicant was provided supplemental promotion consideration for TSgt for cycles 99E6, 00E6, and 01E6 and was not selected for promotion.  Therefore, his claim that he was assured of promotion is without merit.  He also claims that he is entitled to promotion because his current service for basic pay exceeds the high year tenure (HYT) for the grade of staff sergeant.  This argument is also without merit as the applicant is not entitled to automatic promotion merely because he exceeded the HYT while on appellate leave or because his HYT was extended under Stop Loss.  Based on the above, they recommend denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant’s counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluations and indicated that at this time his client chooses not to respond to the advisory opinions.

A complete copy of the response 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence of record, we find that the action taken by the Air Force in regard to providing the applicant supplemental promotion consideration was in accordance with the applicable regulation.  Since the applicant has been provided proper consideration for promotion during the periods in question and was not selected, we find no basis upon which to conclude that he should be promoted to the next higher grade.  His contention that he is entitled to promotion because his service exceeded his high year tenure (HYT) is noted; however, as indicated by AFPC/JA, exceeding his HYT does not entitle him to automatic promotion.  In view of the above findings and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting his request for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant and retirement in that grade.  In regard to applicant’s request to receive pay for the period March 1998 through March 2002, we have been informed that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS-DE) is communicating with the applicant to determine the benefits due during the period in question.  Therefore, no action by the Board is necessary on this issue.

_________________________________________________________________

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 2002-01374 in Executive Session on 27 March 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Apr 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 7 Aug 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 18 Nov 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Nov 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, dated 6 Jan 03.