RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02718
		INDEX CODES:  100.05, 111.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  4 Mar 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

By amendment, his promotion eligibility be reinstated so his test scores for the 03E6 cycle can be graded; he receive promotion consideration for cycle 04E6; his training status code be changed to reflect that the Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of 9A100 was not the first AFSC he was awarded so that he can test using the Promotion Fitness Examination (PFE) only; his Duty AFSC on his EPR closing in 2003 reflect the AFSC of 1N2 (Communications Signals Intelligence); and he be provided any other corrective action to remove the effect of the injustice he has suffered.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In Jul 99, he received an Article 15.  His commander suspended his access to SCI (Sensitive Compartmental Information) materials and he was reduced in rank by a grade.  About four months after the punishment, his commander recommended he get his access back and he be returned to work.  Subsequently, his AFSC of 1N251 was improperly withdrawn, and he became promotion ineligible.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement, excerpts of an Air Force Instruction, copies of his Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs), and other documents associated with the matter under review.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of staff sergeant, with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Jul 01.  His Primary AFSC and DAFSC are 1C731 (Airfield Management), and his duty title is Airfield Management Apprentice.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 17 Aug 87.

Applicant's EPR profile since 1993 follows:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION

	31 Mar 93		5
	27 Oct 93                    Removed by Order of SAF
	27 Oct 94		3
	17 Jul 95		5
	17 Jul 96		4
	17 Jul 97		5
	17 Jul 98		4
	17 Jul 99		3
	30 Mar 00		4
	31 Mar 01		5
	15 Sep 01		5
	15 Sep 02		5
  *	15 Sep 03		5
  *	28 May 04		5

* Contested reports.

On 14 Jun 99, the applicant received an Article 15 for violating a lawful general regulation by wrongfully using government electronic mail (e-mail) and maltreatment of a female petty officer by harassing her.  He was reduced from the grade of staff sergeant to senior airman, with a date of rank of 14 Jun 99.  He appealed the punishment but it was denied.

On 10 Nov 00, the Board considered an application pertaining to the applicant, in which he requested the nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 be set aside or reduced, and his EPR closing 17 Jul 99 be voided and removed from his records.  The majority of the Board recommended his requests be denied, which was approved by the Director, Air Force Review Boards Agency on 1 Feb 01.  The applicant requested reconsideration of his appeal.  On 12 Jul 02, a determination was made that his request did not meet the criteria for reconsideration by the Board (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAC recommended denial noting the applicant’s AFSC was withdrawn under the provisions of AFI 36-2101, Classifying Military Personnel.  They also noted the memorandum provided by the applicant stated the Air Force Central Adjudication Facility (AFCAF) informed him that his clearance was being denied in a letter dated 27 Jun 03.  A HQ ACC/DP memorandum dated 6 Mar 04 also reflected the clearance denial information.  In their view, these memoranda substantiate the AFSC withdrawal action was valid.  The withdrawal action should have been accomplished effective 27 Jun 03.  The only classification provision that allows reinstatement of an AFSC is paragraph 3.6 of AFI 36-2101, which states that an AFSC may be reinstated by the Air Force Career Field Manager if the original reason for withdrawal no longer exists.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAC evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPE indicated they agreed with AFPC/DPPAC regarding the validity of the withdrawal of the applicant’s AFSC.  However, they stated the applicant’s 15 Sep 03 EPR was in error.  In accordance with the AFI 36-2406, Table 3.7, Rule 9, an EPR is required when authorities place a ratee in reporting identifiers 9A100 and 9A000.  Therefore, the report’s DAFSC should read “1N251,” the close-out date should read “26 Jun 03,” the number of days of supervision should read “284,” and the reason for the report should read “DBH.”  Further the 28 May 04 EPR should be corrected to coincide with the prior report.  The from date should read “27 Jun 03” and the DAFSC should read “9A100.”  The applicant’s duty history reads 9A100, not 9A000 as stated by him.

AFPC/DPPPWB indicated the applicant tested for cycle 03E6 in Jun 03; however, he became ineligible for promotion consideration when his AFSC was withdrawn on 27 Jun 03.  The system currently reflects a promotion eligibility status (PES) code of “Q” (Disqualified from previously awarded AFSC for cause).  In accordance with AFI 36-2502, Table 1.1, Rule 18, members are ineligible for promotion consideration if they are disqualified from a previously awarded AFSC for cause.  They remain ineligible until awarded a PAFSC at a skill level commensurate with their current grade.  If it is found the applicant was erroneously removed from his AFSC, he would be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration in the 00XXX AFSC for cycle 03E6 using scores currently on file.  If not selected, he would take the current test for cycle 04E6 in the 00XXX AFSC once he is given 60 days access to the current study material.  If he is unable to test prior to 31 Dec 04 (test becomes obsolete), he would test for the 05E6 and his score would be retroactively applied back to cycle 04E6.  Corrections to the DAFSC on the contested reports would not affect the promotion process.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPE and AFPC/DPPPWB evaluations is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

By letter, dated 25 Oct 04, the applicant provided additional documentation for the Board’s consideration through SAF/MRBR and requested the Board reconsider his Article 15 punishment (Exhibit F).

By letter, dated 28 Oct 04, SAF/MRBR advised the applicant that his additional documents would be included as a part of his application.  However, his request for reconsideration of his Article 15 would have to be submitted as a separate request, since it was not a part of this appeal (Exhibit G).

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and furnished a response indicating the basis of his request is not because he believes his AFSC was withdrawn without merit, but it was done improperly according to AFI 36-2101.

According to the applicant, his case comes down to the fact he was retrained under the Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Retraining Program, his AFSC was changed in the system in Jan 04 (four months after his approved retraining package came back) without a source document.  There was no need to change or remove his AFSC with a class date pending.  This all happened over two years after his clearance had been suspended in 2001.  He is being punished all over again for actions he has more than paid for earlier.  That makes time another issue and concern he has with this matter.  Since 1999, he has received five EPRs, a Joint Service Achievement Medal (JSAM), an Air Force Achievement Medal, several performer of the month and quarter awards, and numerous day passes for his work.  He has done everything he was supposed to do to move on with his life and his career.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

Applicant provided subsequent responses and additional documentary evidence for the Board’s consideration, which are attached at Exhibits J, K, L, and M.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAF/JAA addressed the applicant’s assertions that his AFSC was withdrawn in violation of the governing directive and indicated it did appear the administrative processing of the withdrawal of the applicant’s AFSC was delayed, and somewhat irregular.  However, the underlying withdrawal was proper and mandatory under the governing directive.  The procedural and administrative errors cited by the applicant do not affect the substantive propriety of the withdrawal.  HQ USAF/JAA does not believe the applicant’s AFSC was withdrawn in violation of the governing directive, nor do they believe any corrective action by the Board is warranted.

A complete copy of the HQ USAF/JAA evaluation is at Exhibit N.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant provided a detailed response indicating, in part, that HQ USAF/JAA has missed the point regarding the withdrawal of his AFSC.  He further reiterates that proper procedures were not followed in accordance with the governing directive.  His case is not solely based on if his AFSC should or should not have been removed.  In his view, the real issue is whether it should have been removed in the manner it was done.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit P.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice regarding the applicant’s EPRs closing 15 Sep 03 and 28 May 04.  A review of the evidence presented indicates the applicant’s AFSC of 1N251 was withdrawn on 27 Jun 03 after he was denied his security clearance on that date.  As a result, he was given a reporting identifier of 9A100.  AFPC/DPPPE indicated the governing instruction requires an EPR be prepared when a ratee is placed in a reporting identifier of 9A100.  Therefore, based on the withdrawal of his AFSC, the applicant’s EPR closing 15 Sep 03 should have closed out on 26 Jun 03, and the DAFSC, number of days of supervision, and reason for the report should have been changed.  Further, the from date and DAFSC of the EPR closing 28 May 04 should also be amended.  In view of the foregoing, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected to the extent set forth below.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice concerning the applicant’s requests that his promotion eligibility for the 03E6 cycle be reinstated, he receive promotion consideration for cycle 04E6, and his training status code be changed to reflect the AFSC of 9A100 was not the first AFSC he was awarded so he can test using the PFE only.  The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and the documentation provided in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs).  As noted above, the applicant was denied his security clearance, resulting in his AFSC of 1N251 being withdrawn.  It appears his security clearance was denied because of his nonjudicial punishment under Article 15.  We note the applicant has previously petitioned this Board to set aside the Article 15 or reduce the punishment, which was denied.  No evidence has been presented that would lead us to believe a reversal of the Board’s previous determination regarding the Article 15 is warranted.  Since the applicant was disqualified from his AFSC for cause, he is currently ineligible for promotion consideration.  Although it appears he has retrained into another career field, he remains ineligible for promotion consideration until he is awarded a PAFSC at a skill level commensurate with his current grade.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we agree with the recommendation of the OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, we conclude that no basis exists to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s requests.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

	a.  The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), AF Form 910, rendered for the period 16 Sep 02 through 15 Sep 03 be amended in Section I to show the Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) as “1N251,” the period of the report as 16 Sep 02 through 26 Jun 03, the number of days of supervision as “284,” and the reason for the report as “DBH.”

	b.  The EPR, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 16 Sep 03 through 28 May 04 be amended in Section I to show the DAFSC as “9A100,” and the from date as “27 Jun 03.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 15 Mar 05 and 6 Jul 05, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02718 was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Aug 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum for the Executive Director,
                 dated 1 Feb 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAC, dated 30 Sep 04.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE and AFPC/DPPPWB,
                 dated 21 Oct 04.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 25 Oct 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Oct 04.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 04.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, applicant, dated 12 Nov 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit J.  Letter, applicant, dated 20 Nov 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit K.  Letter, applicant, dated 22 Nov 04.
     Exhibit L.  Letter, applicant, dated 16 Jan 05.
     Exhibit M.  Letter, applicant, dated 1 Feb 05, w/atchs.
     Exhibit N.  Letter, HQ USAF/JAA, dated 7 Apr 05.
     Exhibit O.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Apr 05.
     Exhibit P.  Letter, applicant, dated 25 Apr 05, w/atch.

AFBCMR BC-2004-02718

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to , be corrected to show that:

		a.  The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), AF Form 910, rendered for the period 16 Sep 02 through 15 Sep 03 be amended in Section I to show the Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) as “1N251,” the period of the report as 16 Sep 02 through 26 Jun 03, the number of days of supervision as “284,” and the reason for the report as “DBH.”

		b.  The EPR, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 16 Sep 03 through 28 May 04 be amended in Section I to show the DAFSC as “9A100,” and the from date as “27 Jun 03.”

                                                                           
                                                                           Director
                                                                           Air Force Review Boards Agency