RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03768
		INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  7 Jun 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The “Stop Roster” action imposed on him in July 1994 be removed from his records and he be advanced to the grade of master sergeant with all entitlements and pay.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Two “issues” in his personnel records negatively impacted his promotions during the period 17 Jul 95 to 31 Jan 00:

	  a.  On 16 Jul 94, he received disciplinary action for his conduct on the flight line consisting of 30 days inpatient participation in the Substance Abuse Rehabilitation and Treatment (SART) program, one year “Stop Roster,” 45 days of extra duty, and forfeiture of $300.00 per month for two months.  The “Stop Roster” was explained to him as a disciplinary action that prevented worldwide tours, promotions, awards, etc.  However, the action was never removed from his records.

	  b.  He injured his arm in 1994 and subsequently worked out of his career field for four years.  He could not test for promotion in his career field because he was not actively participating in his career field.  Although he had outstanding reviews and recognition during this period, they served no purpose and did not count toward promotion and advancement.  According to Air Force instructions, when working outside of your career field for a specific time period, permanent reassignment and retraining is required.  This never happened in his case.

The “Stop Roster” error and the four years he was temporarily assigned outside his career field without retraining cost him his chance for promotion.  By 1996 he would have been promoted to technical sergeant (TSgt) and between 1997 and 2000, he would have been promoted to master sergeant (MSgt).

In support of his appeal, applicant provides extracts from his medical and personnel records.  As proof of the “Stop Roster” action, applicant submits a copy of a notification of nonrecommendation for promotion.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 19 Jan 84 and was promoted up to the grade of SSgt (E-5).  On 27 Jul 94, the applicant was punished under Article 15 for incapacity for the proper performance of his duties due to overindulgence in intoxicating liquor or drugs.  Punishment consisted of a suspended reduction in grade to SrA (E-4), forfeiture of $150 pay per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty.  The applicant’s records indicate he was entered into the SART program in 1995.  The applicant was subsequently nonrecommended for promotion for cycle 95E6 by his commander on 27 Oct 95 due to applicant’s entry into the SART program.  The applicant was discharged from the Air Force on 31 Jan 00.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates he separated with a reenlistment code of “1J,” “Eligible to reenlist, but elects to separate.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPF makes no recommendation in the applicant’s case.  They note there is no Personnel or Commander’s program that includes “Stop Roster” actions.  The applicant was denied promotion in accordance with AFR 39-29, Table 2, line U, paragraph 3, in Oct 95.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAC evaluated the applicant’s claim that he was assigned outside his career field for four years and should have been retrained.  The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to substantiate his claim he should have been retrained.  There is no classification or retraining provision to allow an individual to retrain due to being temporarily assigned outside a career field for four years.  Additionally, the applicant’s performance reports indicate he performed duty as a network administrator in his awarded Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC).  There is nothing in the applicant’s documentation or official records to indicate he was ever assigned outside his awarded AFSC.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  Based on the applicant’s date of rank to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt), he was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) five times.  He was ineligible for promotion consideration during cycle 95E6 in accordance with AFR 39-29, Table 2, Line U (identified as a substantiated substance abuser for other than alcohol who has not successfully completed rehabilitation under the Air Force SART program).

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/JA recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  No Air Force quality force management programs include the supposed Stop Roster action the applicant claims prevented his promotion opportunities after he received nonjudicial punishment.  He was properly considered for promotion to TSgt (E-6) in his primary AFSC during five promotion cycles through 1999 and he was never selected.  He was nonrecommended for promotion on 27 Oct 95 for cycle 95E6 pursuant to AFR 39-29 as indicated above.  His records do not support his contention that he was nonrecommended for promotion during any subsequent promotion cycle as a result of this alleged Stop Roster action.

The applicant’s claim he should have been afforded the opportunity to retrain into another career field because he was performing duties outside his primary AFSC for four years is also without merit.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 6 May 05 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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 opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices 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.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis 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 Docket Number BC-2004-03768 in Executive Session on 15 June 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Dec 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPF, dated 17 Feb 05.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPAC, dated 17 Mar 05.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 25 Mar 05.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 3 May 05.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 05.