RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00403
		INDEX CODE:  131.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect promotion to the grade of master sergeant effective CY 2004.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received an unsatisfactory Airman Performance Report (APR) written by SMSgt D--- B--- due to a grudge MSgt B--- had against him since he wrote up discrepancy reports on aircraft for which MSgt B--- was in charge.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement, two DD Forms 214, a copy of his retirement order, seven special orders, a copy of a personnel action request, a classification action request, a copy of page 2 of his Airman Military Record, a copy of a certificate, and a copy of a resume.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15 January 1948 for a period of three years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant on 16 November 1950 and the grade of technical sergeant on 1 June 1960.  Applicant retired on 1 August 1968 in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6).  He served 23 years, 4 months and 15 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE states that the applicant has not provided any specific details pertaining to why he feels the APR was unsatisfactory.  While applicant states the contested time period was between 1 May 1965 and 21 September 1965, the only report endorsed by SMSgt B--- covered the period 28 January 1966 through 27 January 1967.  A report is considered an accurate assessment when written unless documentation is provided proving otherwise.  The applicant has not provided any supporting documentation proving the validity of the comments/markings made in his APR were in any way questionable.

In summary, nothing was provided substantiating applicant’s claims that his APR was in fact unsatisfactory and this report solely eliminated all of his chances of becoming a master sergeant.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB states that a review of the applicant’s record reveals only one report was actually indorsed by MSgt B--- (28  January 1966 - 27 January 1967).  The markings/ratings on this report are almost identical to those on the contested report, with the exception of the indorsing official (CMSgt B---) marking down the performance of duties rating in block II.5., and the overall evaluation rating in block IV.  A board was held in response to an appeal of the APR.  The board found the report to be accurate and directed it remain in applicant’s record.

Promotions during the timeframe the applicant served on active duty were made at the major command, unless delegated by the major command to the wing, group, or squadron levels.  HQ USAF distributed promotion quotas to the major commands based on projected vacancies within each career field subdivision.  Promotion boards selected individuals and the quotas received determined the number that could be promoted.  Some career fields received more promotions than others based on vacancies and the needs of the Air Force.  To be considered for promotion to master sergeant, an individual must have 24 months time-in-grade, possess a 7-skill level Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), and be recommended by the commander.  These were the minimum eligibility requirements to be considered by the promotion board but in no way ensured or guaranteed a promotion.  They found nothing in his record to indicate an error or injustice was made that prevented his promotion to master sergeant.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reiterates his contentions that he was the victim of an unfair APR rating.

Applicant's response, with attachment, 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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 Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the 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 in Executive Session on 28 October 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00403 was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 04, and applicant’s
				Letter dated 27 Feb 04 w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 15 Mar 04.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 19 Mar 04.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 02 Apr 04.
	Exhibit F.	Applicant’s Response, dated 22 Apr 04.

					Panel Chair