RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01621
INDEX CODE:  108.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL:  NONE

								HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  25 November 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

She be reinstated to active duty for two years, promoted to chief master sergeant (CMSgt) (E-9), and given back pay with an effective date of March 2006.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

As a result of an Letter of Reprimand (LOR) placed in her Personnel Information File (PIF), she was denied the opportunity for a two-year extension of employment when considered by the Calendar Year 2006 (CY06) Year Group Assignment Process (YGAP) and, subsequent promotion to the grade of CMSgt.  After she filed a complaint through the Air National Guard Inspector General’s Office (ANG/IG) concerning abuse of authority by ANG/OM, the LOR was removed from her records.  

In support of her application, the applicant provides a personal statement; and copies of CY06 YGAP documents, ANG/IG complaint documents, and Commander-Directed Investigation (CDI) documents.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the Chief of Organizational Support, Air National Guard Readiness Center, the applicant, while serving in the Maryland ANG on a Title 10 United States Code active duty tour, received an LOR on 8 October 2002 for twice failing her 5 skill level Career Development Course (CDC) and failure of her 7 skill level CDC.  On 13 February 2003, the applicant rebutted the LOR; however, the LOR was placed in her PIF.  On 3 November 2005, the applicant was notified that her records were considered by the CY06 YGAP, and that it was recommended that she would be projected for retirement on her then current date of separation of 30 June 2006.  

The applicant filed an AF IMT 102, Inspector General Personal and Fraud, Waste & Abuse Complaint, on 18 July 2006, stating that NGB/OM violated their policies and procedures by never contacting or notifying the applicant after she was interviewed by a selection board for Military Vacancy Announcement (MVA) 2005-165, Update 1 for Executive to Chief, National Guard Chaplain Service.  The IG complaint was determined to be best handled by a CDI.  

The CDI substantiated the allegation that ANG/OM abused its authority by placing a letter containing adverse information regarding the applicant, into her PIF, in violation of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 90-301.  The allegation that both ANG/OM and the selection board, convened to consider MVA 2005-165, abused their authority by inappropriately using the applicant’s LOR within the application process, in violation of AFI 90-301, was substantiated as to ANG/OM and unsubstantiated as to the selection board.  The allegation that ANG/OM abused its authority by re-advertising MVA 2005-165 after it was determined the applicant was first, the only applicant, and then later, the best qualified applicant for the position in violation of AFI 90-301 was unsubstantiated.  

The Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) indicates the applicant retired effective 31 October 2006 in the grade of senior master sergeant with 20 years, 2 months, and 6 days of active duty.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1POF recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  A1POF states the applicant was transferred to the Information Management/Master Sergeant position due to failing to progress in her Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC).  This placed her in an overage for that position and allowed her to remain on active duty status until her retirement date.  The applicant failed her 5 skill level CDC for the Chaplain’s Assistant career field; however, a waiver was submitted permitting her to remain in the AFSC.  In July 2001, she was promoted to senior master sergeant (E-8) while assigned to the Chaplain’s Assistant AFSC under the Retraining Promotion Program.  Although she did not hold the required skill level in accordance with ANG Instruction 36-2502, Promotion of Airman, her supervisor and commander still allowed her to maintain her rank and did not push for a demotion.  According to ANGI 26-2502, paragraph 2.5.2, a member is required to acquire/maintain the skill level in their assigned AFSC commensurate with their new grade.  In June 2002, the applicant failed her 7 skill level CDC.  

A1POF states the adverse information filed in the applicant’s PIF did not prevent and/or prohibit her promotion to CMSgt.  Her failure to acquire/maintain the required skill level in the Chaplain’s Assistant AFSC rendered her ineligible under the governing instruction.  While the CDI found the adverse information had been inappropriately entered into the MVA 2005-165 selection process, it was determined the applicant was not qualified for the position which would have allowed her promotion to the grade of CMSGT.  The final announcement and selection for the Executive to Chief, National Guard Chaplin Service was valid.  If the applicant had been selected to fill this vacancy, she would not have able to progress in the required AFSC beyond her previously awarded 5 skill level due to her failure of the 7 skill level CDC.  

The A1POF evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Only someone who was never the subject of discrimination could have the audacity to suggest the LOR that was placed in her file had no impact upon her being denied a CMSgt position and the opportunity to be extended beyond 20 years of active duty service.  ANG/OM is racist and unfair in the implementation of regulations.  Her claim is that an LOR was placed in her files, without her knowledge, and was used in the application process when she applied for a CMSgt position in the office that she worked in for more than ten years.  It’s true that she did not pass her 7 skill level CDC test, but that by no means hindered her from carrying out the duties and responsibilities that she was tasked to do.  She has the information manager background that none of the other enlisted members had in that office; therefore, she was able to fill in and do other’s work, when they were out of the office, in order to maintain a level of high proficiency for the office.  She supervised subordinates, wrote Enlisted Performance Reports, and made decisions that the CMSgt, who had all the stripes, should have made, but was incapable of doing.  

When she submitted her appeal to the Board, it was for restitution, not to have it tried a second time by the “so called subject matter experts” that are from the same office that committed the impropriety.   

The applicant’s rebuttal 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 timely.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and conclude that while evidence confirms the applicant’s LOR was inadvertently placed in her PIF, it was not the factor that led to her non-selection for the MVA 2005-165 CMSgt position.  The available evidence supports the reason for her non-selection for retention was the fact she failed to maintain the appropriate skill level commensurate with her rank and for the position for which she applied.  In view of this finding, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the Air Force advisory opinion and we adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of either an error or an injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this appeal.

_________________________________________________________________

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 25 September 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2007-01621 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 May 07, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/A1POF, dated 3 Jul 07, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jul 07.
	Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 9 Aug 07.