RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02396
		INDEX CODE:  131.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of rank (DOR) to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) be changed from 1 Feb 02 to 1 Aug 01.
_________________________________________________________________

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 copy of a 24 Jul 02 letter, with attachments.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as 26 Nov 96.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), with an effective date of rank of 1 Feb 02.

Information extracted from the applicant’s submission reveals that, on 27 Jun 01, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and notification of nonrecommendation for promotion to the rank of E‑5.

The remaining 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 at Exhibits B and C.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application be denied.  DPPPWB stated that the applicant was selected for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) during cycle 00E5 and received promotion sequence number (PSN) 18895 (Promotion effective 1 Aug 01).  On 27 Jun 01, the applicant received a LOR for driving under the influence (DUI) as well as a letter from his commander nonrecommending him for promotion to E-5 for cycle 00E5.  On 25 Mar 02, the State of Arizona dismissed the DUI charges.  DPPPWB stated that just because the applicant’s case was dismissed does not mean he was innocent of the offense.  His commander issued the LOR and nonrecommended him for promotion because he was DUI, with a blood alcohol level of .188%, not because he was found guilty or convicted by trial.  The applicant was selected for promotion to E-5 during cycle 01E5, with a DOR of 1 Feb 02.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit B.

HQ AFPC/JA recommends the application be denied.  At the time applicant’s commander withheld his promotion, he [applicant] was the subject of an inquiry that resulted in prosecution by civil authorities, even though the State of Arizona decided, almost a year later, to dismiss the charges against him.  JA indicated that the applicant’s commander acted appropriately, and in accordance with AFI 36-2502, in withholding his promotion in Jun 01.  With respect to the applicant’s contention that, since his DUI case was dismissed in Mar 02 and all charges dropped, his original DOR of 1 Aug 01 should be restored, In JA’s opinion, the applicant has not demonstrated the existence of a material error or injustice that warrants correction of his records.  Dismissal of the charges against the applicant involved neither the presentation of any evidence nor any factual findings as to the merits of those charges.  Despite applicant’s statement that “I was punished for an offense that I was found not guilty of,” JA stated that the dismissal without prejudice in no way indicates that applicant was innocent of the charges against him.  The applicant has failed to present relevant evidence of any error or injustice warranting relief.  The HQ AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 23 August 2002 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case.  However, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the respective Air Force offices 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 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 in Executive Session on 10 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jul 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 7 Aug 02.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 23 Aug 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Aug 02.