RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02044
			INDEX CODE:  131.05
			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be retroactively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His branch chief recommended him for promotion under the Promotion Enhancement Program (PEP).  However, the promotion was denied by his squadron commander.  His commander told him the reason for the denial was because of a shirt he chose to wear in his civilian capacity and an incident that occurred at a salute to the military with the Public Affairs officer, also in a civilian capacity.  He is now being told that the commander denied his promotion due to his "poor communication skills."  His chain of command is punishing him for an ongoing Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) compliant that he filed on the civil service side of the house.  

He is currently being considered for an AFRC promotion as he approaches 16 years of service.  However, the same commander that denied his PEP promotion has to sign-off on this particular recommendation.  

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, a copy of his AF Form 971, documents associated with his EEO complaint, a redacted copy of his Inspector General (IG) Report of Investigation (ROI), a witness statement, a records review printout; a copy of his AF Form 860B, Civilian Progress Review Worksheet; a copy of his AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), closing on 9 Jun 99; and, copies of AF Forms 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the Personnel Data System reflects that after serving various assignments on active duty and in the Air National Guard, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 8 Jun 94 in the grade of staff sergeant.  He has been promoted to the grade of technical sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 1 Nov 02.  He has completed 15 years of satisfactory Federal service.

The following is a resume of the applicant's recent EPR profile:

	PERIOD ENDING	PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

		7 Jun 99		4
		7 Jun 01		4
		3 Jun 02		3

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/DPM reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  DPM states that his squadron commander did not submit the applicant for a PEP promotion because of "poor communication skills."  This assessment was substantiated by two intermediate supervisors.  Based on a review of his EPR which closed on 7 Jun 99, it appears that he does not meet the high standards necessary for promotion under the PEP program as the PEP program is a board based promotion program and only the best of the best are to be nominated and promoted.  The DPM evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 2 Aug 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 that would warrant retroactive promotion to the grade of technical sergeant.  The applicant's contention that his commander's decision was retaliatory in nature is duly noted, however after carefully reviewing the evidence provided, we find his claim to be unsubstantiated.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that his commander abused his discretionary authority or that his decision not to recommend the applicant for promotion was based on anything other than his determination that the applicant was not qualified for promotion under the PEP program.  Therefore, 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.  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 Docket Number 02-02044 in Executive Session on 4 Dec 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Apr 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFRC/DPM, dated 22 Jul 02.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Aug 02.
    Exhibit D.  SAF/IG Report of Investigation - WITHDRAWN

                                   Panel Chair