6 

ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02663-  DEC 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  No 

4  1 9 ~  

b 

RESUME OF CASE: 
In an application dated 2 1   January 1997, applicant requested that 
his  effective date  of promotion  to  the  grade  of  Senior Master 
Sergeant be changed to reflect that he was promoted during cycle 
94S8 . 
On  17  July  1997,  the  Board  considered  and  granted 
applicant's  request  (AFBCMR Docket Number 97-00275) .  A complete 
copy of the Record of Proceedings (ROP)  is attached at Exhibit.E. 
Applicant  submitted  another  application  dated  29  August  1997, 
requesting direct promotion to the grade of Chief Master Sergeant 
effective during the 95E9 promotion cycle. 
On 10 February 1998, the Board considered and denied applicant's 
request  on  the  basis  that  insufficient  evidence  of  either  an 
error  or  an  injustice  had  been  presented  which  warranted 
corrective action.  A  complete  copy -of  the  ROP  is  attached  at 
Exhibit F. 
Applicant  has  submitted  additional  documentation  and  requested 
reconsideration of  his application (Exhibit G).  Applicant's case 
has been reopened at this time to consider this issue. 

~- 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  Chief,  Inquiries/BCMR  Section,  AFPC/DPPPW,  reviewed  the 
request and recommends denial of direct promotion to the grade of 
senior master  sergeant.  They  state that when  they wrote  their 
19 September  1997  advisory  indicating  that  applicant  could  be 
provided  supplemental promotion  consideration,  it  was  with  the 
understanding that he had a USAF Supervisory Examination (USAFSE) 
score.  They failed to recognize that applicant had  a projected 
date  of  retirement  of  1  November  1997.  A s   stated  in  their 
16 April  1998 letter to applicant, without a USAFSE  test score, 
supplemental promotion consideration could not be provided.  The 
total weighted score  (to include the USAFSE) is subtracted from 
the cutoff score required  for selection to determine what board 
score is needed to be selected by the original board.  The cutoff 
score  required  f o r   selection  is  comprised  of  both  a  weighted 
score  and  a  board  score.  This  board  score  is  then  used  to 

AFBCMR 97-02663 

determine  which  six  benchmark  records  are  used  as  a  basis  of 
comparison.  Since applicant voluntarily retired 1 November 1997 
and had not taken the USAFSE  required for Chief Master Sergeant, 
supplemental  consideration  could  not  be  provided. 
Since 
applicant requested his DEROS be curtailed from January 1998 to 
November 1997 and voluntarily retired effective 1 November 1997, 
he  was  not  eligible  for  promotion  consideration  during  cycle 
9739.  Testing for this cycle was done in August 1997, selections 
completed 31 October 1997, with promotions effective January 1998 
through December 1998.  Had he been  eligible, his USAFSE  score 
from the 97E9 cycle would have been applied retroactivelv to the 
9539 and 9639 cycles and he would havebeen provided supplemental 
consideration on 4 May 1998. 
While  the  applicant  claims  his  record  was  above  the  average 
selectee in every category, this is merely speculation.  There is 
no way of knowing at this point how a promotion board would have 
evaluated his record.  They cannot determine now if he would have 
been selected for either the 9539 or 9639 cycles.  If he had been 
selected for the  9539 cycle, he would  have  received'a sequence 
number which would have been  incremented on 1 November  1996; if 
selected during 96E9, he would have received a number incremented 
on 1 October 1997.  Since he retired on 1 November 1997, he would 
not  have  satisfied the  two  year active duty  service commitment 
(ADSC)  required  for  promotion  to  the  top  three  grades,  if 
selected for either cycle. 
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit H. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that while 
it  is  true  that  he  was  ineligible  for  promotion  consideration 
during cycle 9737, his request is to be considered by cycle 9539, 
a cycle for which he was eligible, but for which he was not given 
the opportunity to compete.  He was made eligible for cycles 9539 
and  96E9 due  to  a  change  in  his  promotion  effective  date  to 
senior master  sergeant being  adjusted.  His  records that would 
have been reviewed by the those promotion boards would have been 
superior in nearly  every  category considered.  During  the  same 
time  frame,  a  promotion board  looked  at  his  records and  rated 
them in the top one percent of the career field to senior master 
sergeant.  During that time, the promotion rate to chief master 
sergeant was 18 percent.  He believes that in his case there was 
a  clear  injustice which  is  the  purpose  of  the  "Correction to 
Military Records" to correct. 
Applicant's  complete response is attached at Exhibit J. 

2 

) 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate 
the existence of probable error or  injustice.  After  thoroughly 
reviewing  the  evidence  of  record,  we  are  not  persuaded  that 
applicant  should  be  promoted  to  the  grade  of  chie€  master 
sergeant through the correction of records process.  In summary, 
based  on  applicant's  original 
date  of  rank  to  senior  master 
sergeant, the first time he would have been eligible to test for 
chief master  sergeant was  during  cycle  9739; however,  since he 
had an established date of retirement of 1 November 1997, he was 
ineligible  to  test  for  this  cycle. 
The  Air  Force  Personnel 
Center advised the Board that should applicant's date of rank be 
adjusted to 1 January 1994, he would be eligible for supplemental 
promotion consideration, but  they did not take into account his 
established  date  of  retirement. 
Therefore,  when  the  Board 
recommended  the  adjustment  of  his  DOR  to  1  January  1994,  he 
became  eligible  for  supplemental  promotion  consideration  for 
cycles  9539  and  9639. 
However,  since  he  was  ineligible  for 
promotion  consideration  for  cycle  9739,  he  never  took  the 
requisite USAFSE.  Without  this  test,  the Air  Force  could not 
provide  him  supplemental  promotion  consideration  as  they  had 
indicated  they  would  since  there  was  no  USAFSE  test  score 
available to be  applied  retroactively to  cycles 9539 and  9639. 
While applicant is entitled to  feel that this is unfair, by  the 
same token, he  virtually tied  the Air  Force's hands to provide 
him  supplemental promotion consideration.  In  this  respect, he 
was  not  required  to  retire,  however,  he  voluntarily  chose  to 
retire  in November  1997, well  before  his  high  year  of  tenure. 
The  evidence  is  indisputable, he  never  tested  for  chief master 
sergeant and yet he wants the Board to promote him.  Although he 
contends that his record is above the average selectee, this is 
merely  his  opinion.  Without  clear-cut  evidence  that  he  would 
have been a selectee, we  find no basis  upon which  to grant his 
request.  While  it  is unfortunate that he  will be  unable  to be 
considered  for  supplemental  promotion  to  the  grade  of  chief 
master  sergeant,  this  Board  is  keenly  aware  of  the  stiff 
competition there is f o r   this grade and simply because applicant 
was  selected  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  senior  master 
sergeant, that  is no  guarantee he would have been  selected  for 
the next higher grade. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 
The  applicant be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  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. 

3 

a

'

 

AFBCMR 97-02663 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 29 September 1998, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603: 

Mr. Michael P. Higgins, 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member 

Panel Chair 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit E . 
Exhibit F. 
Exhibit G. 
Exhibit H. 
Exhibit I . 
Exhibit J. 

ROP, dated 12 Aug 97, w/atchs. 
ROP, dated 6  Mar 98, w/atchs. 
Applicant's Letter, dated 2 Ju 
- Letter, AFPC/DPPPW, dated 7 Au 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Aug 9 
Applicant's response, dated, 25 

. . 
98 ./ - 

Panel Chair 

4