RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00646
		INDEX NUMBER:  131.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered for promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant for cycle 82S9.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) was not considered in the overall promotion board score, which resulted in him not being selected for promotion to chief master sergeant.  Applicant feels his board score for cycle 82S9 was incorrect.

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits copies of his Senior NCO Promotion Score Notices for cycle 82S9.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served on active duty from 11 Jun 54 to 30 Jun 82.

The applicant received an MSM for the period 3 Oct 79 – 2 Oct 80, which met the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) of 31 Dec 80, for cycle 82S9.  The MSM is worth five weighted promotion points.

Applicant was considered and nonselected for promotion to CMSgt during the CMSgt Central Evaluation Board for cycle 82S9, which convened on 23 Feb 81.

On 30 Jun 82, he was honorably relieved from active duty in the grade of E-8, and retired for years of service, effective 1 Jul 82. 

Applicant provided two senior NCO promotion score notices for cycle 82S9.  The score notice prepared 17 Mar 81, reflects “decorations used (number/type) and score” – 4 AF Commendation Medals, for a score of 12.00 points.  Applicant’s total weighted score and board score was 629.66; the score required for selection in his AFSC was 652.27.  The notice prepared 15 May 81, reflects “decorations used (number/type) and score” – 1 Meritorious Service Medal, 4 AF Commendation Medals, for a score of 17.00 points.  The applicant’s total weighted score and board score was 634.66, and the score required for selection was 652.27.

Per Special Order, dated 22 Jul 82, applicant was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster, for the period 17 Oct 80 – 30 Jun 82.  AFPC administratively corrected the applicant’s DD Form 214 to reflect this award on 3 May 04.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed this application and recommended denial.  They stated, in part, that the applicant was properly considered for promotion during cycle 82S9 and awarded the appropriate weighted points for his MSM.  A review of the applicant’s military records revealed a SNCO Promotion Brief dated 27 Jan 81, that reflected an MSM was added to his Brief.  Based on the above, they can only assume either the citation or decoration was present in the SNCO selection folder and was seen by the Board.  However, the decoration was not updated in the system at the time initial selects were run as evidenced by the score notice dated 17 Mar 81.  The decoration was later updated in the system, which caused the applicant to automatically run in the in-system supplemental process.  He received another score notice dated 15 May 81 with the added five weighted points for the MSM and he was still nonselected.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit B.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant contends the Board did not consider his MSM, that the original brief he submitted did not reflect an MSM, and that the MSM was not in his military records at the time of the Board, consequently resulting in his denial to the pay grade of E-9.

The Review Board provided him with a copy of his Promotion Brief, which was not an original and had been altered.  The MSM was typed in on this altered brief to give the appearance of it being authentic.  Also, the MSM (1OLC) was not considered by the promotion board.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.
___________________________________________________________________

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.  Applicant’s contentions that the MSM for the period 3 Oct 79 to 2 Oct 80, was not included on the original brief that was submitted to him, was not in his records when the promotion board convened, and therefore was not considered by the board, are duly noted.  However, given the untimeliness of his appeal, we do not find these arguments, in and of themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale expressed by the Air Force.  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.  Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  We noted applicant’s contention that the MSM, 1OLC, was not considered by the promotion board; however, since this award did not close out until 30 Jun 82, and was not awarded until 22 Jul 82, it did not meet the eligibility criteria for cycle 82S9.

___________________________________________________________________

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‑2004-00646 in Executive Session on 21 July 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Feb 04, w/atchs
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 23 Apr 04, w/atchs
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 May 04
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 May 04