ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00059-2
INDEX CODE:  129.04
   XXXXXXXXXXXXXX			COUNSEL: NONE

   XXXXXXXXXX				HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

He be retired in the grade of master sergeant (E-7). 

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s appeal was considered and denied by the Board on 23 July 2003.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s case, and, the rationale for the decision by the Board, see Exhibit H.  After the Board decision, the Air Force office of primary responsibility, SAF/PC, submitted an amended opinion and rationale for their recommendation to deny the applicant’s request.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAF/PC states that in their previous review, they recommended denial of the applicant’s request because he voluntarily declined to serve the 2-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) required to retire as a master sergeant.  In their advisory, dated 13 July 2004, they changed their rationale for recommending denial to the brevity of the applicant’s service as a master sergeant, not his failure to complete the ADSC.  

PC states that the statute governing advancement on the retired list does not indicate how long a member must serve in the higher grade before his or her service can be considered as sufficiently “satisfactory” to warrant advancement at the 30-year point.  A member must serve in the higher grade a sufficient time to demonstrate his or her capability and willingness to perform the duties of the higher grade.  In the case of officers, Congress has determined this period to be six months.  The Air Force Board for Corrections of Military Records (AFBCMR) and the Personnel Council (PC) have long employed this 6-month criterion as a starting point in evaluating these cases.  Both Boards further consider whether the member’s service was marred by misconduct, whether his or her service was terminated for cause, and if the member’s overall service in the higher grade merits advancement.  

PC states in the applicant’s case, there is no evidence of misconduct; however, the brevity of his service as a master sergeant does not provide a sufficient basis upon which to justify advancement to the higher grade.  

The PC revised evaluation is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the revised Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 27 July 2004 for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

In earlier findings, the Board determined that there was insufficient evidence to warrant correcting the records to allow the applicant to retire in the grade of master sergeant.  After a careful review of the Air Force Personnel Counsel’s revised opinion for recommending denial and reconsideration of the applicant’s request, our earlier decision is affirmed.  The record clearly shows the applicant served two months in the higher grade prior to his demotion based on the approval of his voluntary retirement.  Once again, we find no evidence that would lead us to believe the applicant’s retirement in the grade of technical sergeant was contrary to well established and long standing Air Force practice and policy.  Accordingly, in view of the foregoing and absent evidence leading us to believe the applicant was miscounseled or his decision to retire was coerced, we again find no basis to act favorably on his request.  

_________________________________________________________________

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 24 November 2004.

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00059-2 was considered:

	Exhibit H.  Record of Proceedings, dated 20 Feb 04,
                with Exhibits.
	Exhibit I.  Letter, AFPC, dated 13 July 2004.
	Exhibit J.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 July 2004.