RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01181
		INDEX CODE:  131.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt) effective 1 January 2006 with pay and benefits retroactive.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was PCA’d (Permanent Change of Assignment) into the position she currently holds on 1 November 2005.  The authorized grade was allegedly downgraded from senior master sergeant (SMSgt) to master sergeant (MSgt).  In early February 2006, she found out that the position was still authorized at SMSgt.  She confronted her commander regarding her request for promotion to SMSgt.  Her commander waited until she was beyond the two-year time in grade (TIG) requirement and facing High Year of Tenure (HYT) before answering her request for promotion with a statement indicating she was not eligible for promotion as she did not have the TIG requirement met.

In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement and copies of several pertinent email trails, manning documents, personnel records and assorted other pertinent correspondence.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 10 June 1975.  She has been progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 July 1995.  In November 2005, she was reassigned to a SMSgt authorization.  She was not promoted however to SMSgt.  On 24 March 2006, she filed an Inspector’s General (IG) complaint alleging her commander inconsistently applied policy with respect to promotion and HYT date waivers.  On 7 April 2006, the IG notified her that her complaint would be better addressed through Air Force Reserve Center (AFRC) through the Secretary of the Air Force Inspector General, Complaint Resolution Directorate (SAF/IGQ).  On 14 June 2006, HQ AFRC/IGQ responded to her complaint by determining that she was not promoted to SMSgt because she did not have the two years of retainability required for promotion.  Further, her commander’s decision to not grant her an HYT waiver, while granting waivers to others, was based on the individual circumstances of each situation and was within her commander’s authority and discretion to make.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/A1B recommends denial.  A1B states that after all other criteria have been met the final decision to promote rests with the commander.  At the commander’s discretion it was determined additional time was needed to observe the member’s duty performance.  Upon reconsideration for promotion the applicant’s HYT date prevented her from meeting the Reserve Service Commitment requirement of two years for promotion.

A1B’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states AFRC never read her package prior to completing their advisory opinion.  She restates her previous evidence more in depth through a detailed bullet paper.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  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 office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In this respect, a commander is not under any obligation to promote a member who meets the basic requirements, such as TIG, until that commander feels that the member is ready for promotion and proceeds with a recommendation.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe her commander’s actions were inappropriate or that she abused her discretionary authority.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-01181 in Executive Session on 5 September 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Apr 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFRC/A1B, dated 13 Jun 07, w/atch.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jun 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jun 07, w/atch.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair