ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1999-01956

	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Board reconsider his request for:
 
1)	Promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant in 1995; 

2)	Retirement in the grade of chief master sergeant in 2009; and, 

3)	In a new request, he receive the Legion of Merit.  

RESUME OF THE CASE:

On 29 Sep 92, the Board considered the applicant’s initial request that he be promoted to the grade of master sergeant, effective 1 Apr 91.  The Board recommended the applicant’s record be provided supplemental consideration to the grade of master sergeant by the FY91 Central Stripes for Exceptional Performers (STEP) Selection Board.  However, on 9 Dec 92, the Air Force Review Boards Agency Deputy reviewed the Board’s recommendation and determined the recommended relief did not provide fair and fitting relief.  He directed that the applicant be promoted to the grade of master sergeant, effective 20 Mar 91, and the AFOSI report and other investigative reports concerning his award, decorations, and promotion test scores, be sequestered.  

On 23 Sep 99, the Board considered the applicant’s request that two of his Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) be removed or replaced, and he be promoted to the grades of senior master sergeant as of 1993 and chief master sergeant as of 1995.  The Board denied the requests for removing or replacing the EPRs and for promotion to chief master sergeant.  However, the Board concluded actions taken by the former Director, Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council, set off a chain of events that ultimately negatively impacted the applicant’s opportunities for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant.  The Board thus granted partial relief by correcting his record to show promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant during the 96E8 cycle.

For an accounting of the applicant’s original two requests and the rationale of the earlier decisions, see the AFBCMR Letter and Record of Proceedings at Exhibit L.

On 29 Apr 16, the applicant requested reconsideration for promotion to and retirement in the grade of chief master sergeant, and in a new request, award of the Legion of Merit.  The applicant contends the former AFBCMR Executive Director told him to wait until 2016 to resubmit his case.  He has endured much pain and suffering from shameful, racially motivated discrimination and was treated unfairly by the promotion boards and the Air Force Personnel Center.  He has been loyal to those in his chain of command and has done everything they have requested, including waiting silently all of these years.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit M.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP3SP recommends denying the applicant’s request for the award of the Legion of Merit.  During the time when the applicant contends he should have been awarded the Legion of Merit, a 14 Jun 97 memorandum for the Adjutant General from the then Chief of Staff of the Air Force stated the Legion of Merit was primarily an award for colonels; however, the policy extended to general officers, colonels, and major command senior enlisted advisors.  While there was allowance for the chain of command to request an exception to policy through the decorations board, senior enlisted advisors below the major command level very seldom met the stringent criteria.  A memorandum dated 3 Jun 97, reflected not one exception to policy for any service members in the grade of senior master sergeant.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit M.

AFPC/DPSIDE advises they need not provide a recommendation since the applicant is not contesting an EPR in the current application.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit N.

AFPC/DP2SPP recommends denying the applicant’s request for supplemental promotion consideration to chief master sergeant.  The applicant never held the grade of senior master sergeant while on active duty and therefore was never eligible to test or be considered for promotion to chief master sergeant.  Without a test score on file, it would not be possible to provide supplemental promotion consideration under the Weighted Airman Promotion System process.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit O.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 24 Aug 18 for comment (Exhibit P), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

The applicant has not presented evidence sufficient to establish that he is the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board agrees with the offices of primary responsibility and finds no basis to recommend granting the requested relief for promotion to chief master sergeant or award of the Legion of Merit.  Furthermore, while the Board previously determined there was sufficient evidence to support promotions to both master sergeant and senior master sergeant, the previous two decisions provided the applicant full and fitting relief.  Therefore, the Board recommends against the additional corrections the applicant is seeking with his current application.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-1999-01956-2 in Executive Session on 11 Oct 18:

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit K:	Records of Proceedings, w/ Exhibits A-J, dated 20 Oct 99.
Exhibit L:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 29 Apr 16.
Exhibit M:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 21 Dec 17. 
Exhibit N:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DPSIDE, dated 8 Feb 18.
Exhibit O:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SPP, dated 17 Jul 18.
Exhibit P:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 24 Aug 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.