RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:  				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02594
								INDEX CODE:  131.05
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX			COUNSEL: NONE 

	XXXXXXXXXXXXX					HEARING DESIRED: YES 

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to chief master sergeant (CMSgt) (E-9) during the 02E9 promotion cycle and retained on active duty.  If promoted, 60 days of his leave be reinstated and he be assigned to Kadena Air Base, Japan.  

If his requests above are denied, he requests that his records be considered for supplemental promotion to CMSgt for promotion cycle 02E9, his 8 September 2003 promotion test be thrown out, he be given 60 days’ study time, and he be re-tested for the 03E9 supplemental board. 

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The 02E9 Supplemental Promotion Board wrongfully used his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), closing 8 September 2002, when considering him for promotion.  This error did not allow him a fair or equal opportunity to compete for promotion with his peers.  Additionally, he was wrongfully tested during promotion cycle 03E9 because he was ineligible for promotion at that time.  

He originally requested a retirement date of 31 August 2002, which made him ineligible for promotion for the 02E9 promotion cycle.  His retirement was cancelled due to the implementation of the September 2001 Stop Loss.  He withdrew his request for retirement before the 31 July 2002 promotion cut off date, allowing his promotion eligibility for the 02E9 promotion test cycle to be reinstated.  However, his promotion eligibility was not reinstated until April 2003; therefore, his records were considered by the 02E9 Supplemental Promotion Board.  Prior to his records meeting the board, he attempted to get discrepancies in his records corrected.  All corrections were made prior to the board with the exception of his EPR closing 8 September 2002.  The close out date for any records/documents that could be used/considered for the 02E9 board was 31 July 2002.  He was surprised when the board did not select him for promotion so he inquired and confirmed that the board had looked at the 8 September 2002 EPR; therefore, not allowing him a fair and equal opportunity to compete with his peers.  

He requested retirement again, which was approved for 31 August 2003.  Stop Loss also effected his 2003 retirement.  He withdrew his retirement prior to the 31 July 2003 promotion cut off date so he could test for the 03E9 promotion cycle.  AFI 36-2605 states that members who become newly eligible for promotion must receive at least 60 days study time to study reference material prior to testing.  The Air Force revised the Promotion Fitness Evaluation (PFE) manual for the 03E9 promotion cycle; therefore making the previous 02E9 PFE obsolete and his prior study time useless.  The promotion testing section notified him that he would test for the 03E9 test cycle on 8 September 2003 and since he had just tested for the 02E9 cycle on 24 June 2003, he would not get any further study time for the 03E9 promotion cycle.  The chief of testing also told him that the 8 September 2003 date for testing was his only opportunity to test for the 03E9 testing cycle and if he did not accept it he would be shown as declining his opportunity to test for that cycle.  However, he did not become eligible to test until 8 October 2003.  He was made to test for the 03E9 test cycle even though he was ineligible to test for that promotion cycle and he did not get his required 60 days of study time.  

He truly believes he would have been promoted during the 02E9 promotion cycle and retained on active duty.  Had he been promoted during either of the 02E9 or 03E9 promotion cycles, he would not have wasted his 116 days terminal leave and would have never requested retirement.  In addition, if he hadn’t been wrongfully placed on Stop Loss during March 2003, he would not have been forced to waste his leave that he had saved for terminal leave.

In support of his application, the applicant provides personal statements; an excerpt from AFI 36-2605; electronic and computer-generated communications concerning his promotion eligibility and testing; and copies of his EPRs closing 8 September 2001 and 8 September 2002.   The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A (two - DD Forms 149 with attachments).

__________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 25 March 1977, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the age of 19 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years.  He was progressively promoted to the rank of Senior Master Sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 1 August 1999.  

The applicant was non-selected for promotion by the 02E9 Supplemental Evaluation Selection Board and the 03E9 Central Evaluation Board.

On 1 August 2004, the applicant was notified that the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) approved voiding his 8 September 2002 EPR; however, they disapproved his request for supplemental promotion consideration for the 03E9 Central Evaluation Board because the corrective action was not initiated prior to the original central evaluation board.

On 4 October 2004, the applicant was notified by AFPC/DPPPWM, that his records would be considered on 2 May 2005 for 03E9 supplemental promotion consideration due to his voided EPR.  

The applicant was honorably discharged from active duty effective 30 September 2004 and retired effective 1 October 2004.  He served 27 years, 3 months, and 7 days on active duty. 

__________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s requests.  DPPPWB states that the Chief of the Senior Non-Commissioned Officer (SNCO) Promotion Section verified in a 16 October 2003 message to the applicant that the top report in his record for the 02E9 Supplemental Promotion Board closed out 8 September 2001.   When the applicant was notified by AFPC that his 8 September 2002 report was on top of his record, his record had already been re-aged for the 03E9 cycle.  

DPPPWB states the applicant should never have been eligible for promotion consideration for the 03E9 promotion cycle; however, he was erroneously tested on 8 September 2003.  His total promotion score was 592.45 and the score required for promotion in his Air Force Specialty Code was 645.42.  DPPPWB states that in reference to the applicant’s contentions concerning lack of study time, AFI 36-2505, Air Force Military Personnel Testing System, indicates, “Do not delay testing to give additional study time unless members did not have access to study reference materials at least 60 days prior to test date.”  It is DPPPWB’s opinion that the applicant had sufficient access to study material prior to his test date because the new PFE was distributed in April 2003 and available in June 2003.  The PDF format version was available through the web starting in June 2003 as well.  Additionally, when a member signs the promotion testing Report on Individual Person, he or she is waiving the right to 60 days even if he or she does not have the materials 60 days prior to the test date.  

DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s request for supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 02E9 since the correct EPRs were seen during the promotion process.  Additionally, they recommend denial of his request for supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 03E9 because his complaint is baseless.  DPPPWB states the applicant was later found to be ineligible for promotion and while he did received erroneous consideration initially, this error should not be perpetuated by allowing him additional erroneous promotion consideration regardless of the merits of his argument concerning test preparation.  The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief SNCO Promotion Section did not verify anything except that she was trying to cover up their mistake in allowing the wrong EPR to be used during the 02E9 supplemental promotion board.  AFPC is trying to find ways to justify/cover-up the mistakes they have made concerning his promotion opportunities during the 02E9 and 03E9 promotion cycles.  

He was not promotion eligible for the 03E9 promotion cycle until 8 October 2003; therefore, he had no idea when his testing date would be.  He should have been given 60 days with study materials prior to testing for the 03E9 promotion cycle when he became eligible.  AFPC confirms he was erroneously tested on 8 September 2003.  He signed an Air Force Form 1566; however, it does not state anywhere on the form about waiving his 60 days of study time.  However, it does state that if he did not complete the form, it constitutes refusal to test and renders him ineligible for promotion during that promotion cycle.  

He wrote every office in his chain of command trying to get someone to correct the wrong things that happened to him in the last couple of years.  His complaints keep getting turned over to AFPC/IG for response.  AFPC/IG only sends bogus answers and never addresses his issues.  

He received a letter, dated 4 October 2004, from AFPC/DPPPWM allowing him supplemental promotion consideration for the 03E9 promotion cycle because the ERAB approved voiding his 8 September 2002 EPR.  However, they don’t mention anything about throwing out the erroneous test he took on 8 September 2003.  His records meeting the 03E9 Supplemental Promotion Board using the 8 September 2003 erroneous test results is clearly wrong.  AFPC/DPPP has made many excuses, false and inaccurate statements in trying to cover-up the unfair/wrongful handling of his promotion opportunities during the 02E9 and 03E9 promotion cycles.  He believes they are confused about what they have said and wrote.  The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.  The applicant’s additional comments (after receiving approval for 03E9 Supplemental Promotion Consideration), with attachments, are at Exhibit F.  

__________________________________________________________________

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.  The applicant requests direct promotion to CMSgt by the 02E9 promotion cycle, reimbursement of 60 days of leave, and assignment to Kadena AB, Japan.  He states, if his requests are denied, he wants his records to be considered for supplemental promotion to CMSgt for promotion cycle 02E9, his 8 September 2003 promotion test be thrown out, he be given 60 days’ study time, and he be re-tested for the 03E9 supplemental board.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we find no evidence to show that the applicant’s records were in error when they were considered for 02E9 supplemental promotion consideration; therefore, his request for direct promotion to CMSgt or additional supplemental promotion consideration for the 02E9 promotion cycle is not warranted.  Since submitting his appeal, the applicant was notified his records would receive 03E9 supplemental promotion consideration on 2 May 2005 because the ERAB voided his 8 September 2002 EPR.  In the case of the applicant’s request for leave reimbursement, it appears that when the applicant voluntarily pulled his retirement paperwork, the responsible officials applied appropriate standards in determining the usage of his use or loose leave.  Other than the applicant’s assertions, we find no evidence to show that the applicant was not afforded the same opportunities as other members in his situation concerning the usage of his leave.  Therefore, we agree with the recommendations of the Air Force 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 foregoing, we conclude that no basis exists to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.  

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

__________________________________________________________________

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 17 February 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02594 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 16 Aug 04, with attachments.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dtd 24 Aug 04, with atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Sep 04.
	Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dtd 17 Sep 04, with atchs.
	Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dtd 6 Oct 04, with atchs.