AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01061 

COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  No 

OEC I I 'a 
- 

Applicant requests that he be  directly promoted  to the grade of 
chief  master  sergeant  as  if  selected  for promotion  during  the 
9739 promotion cycle.  Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. 

As noted by the Air Force, in their advisory opinions of 12 June 
and 12 Aug 1998 (Exhibits C and E), the indorser's duty title and 
final evaluator's position block were incorrect.  These technical 
errors  have  been  corrected  and  the  applicant  was  provided 
supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of chief master 
sergeant for the 9739 cycle and nonselected.  Therefore, the only 
issue under  consideration by  this Board  is  applicant's request 
for direct promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant.  The 
appropriate Air  Force offices evaluated  applicant's allegations 
and  provided  advisory  opinions  to  the  Board  recommending  his 
request  for direct promotion be  denied.  The advisory opinions 
were  forwarded  to  the  applicant  for  review  and  response 
(Exhibit D).  As of  this date, no response has been received by 
this office. 

After  careful  consideration  of  applicant's  request  and  the 
available evidence  of  record, we  find  insufficient  evidence  of 
error or injustice to warrant  the  applicant be  promoted  to  the 
grade of chief master sergeant.  The facts and opinions stated in 
the  advisory  opinions  appear  to  be  based  on  the  evidence  of 
record  and  have  not  been  rebutted  by  applicant. 
Absent 
persuasive  evidence  applicant  was  denied  rights  to  which 
entitled,  appropriate  regulations  were  not  followed,  or 
appropriate  standards  were  not  applied,  we  find  no  basis  to 
disturb the existing record. 

Accordingly,  applicant's request  for  direct  promotion  to  the 
grade of chief master sergeant is denied. 

The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision. 
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and 
will only be  reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant 
evidence  which  was  not  reasonably  available  at  the  time  the 
application was filed. 

Members  of the  Board  Mrs.  Barbara  A.  Westgate,  Dr. Gerald  B. 
Kauvar, and Ms. Rita J. Maldonado considered this application on 
3 December 1998 in accordance with  the provisions of  Air  Force 
Instruction 36-2603, and the governing statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552. 

BAR~ARA A. WESTGAT@ 
Panel Chair 

Exhibits : 
A.  Applicant's DD Form 149 
B.  Available Master Personnel Records 
C.  Advisory Opinions 
D. 
E. 
F. 

AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions 
Addendum to Air Force Advisory Opinion 
AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion 

D E P A R T M E N T  O F  T H E  A I R   F O R C E  

H E A D Q U A R T E R S   A I R   F O R C E   P E R S O N N E L  C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H  A I R   F O R C E   E A S E  T E X A S  

MEMORANDUM FOR  AFBCMR 

12 Jun 98 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPEP 

550 C Street West Ste 07 
Randolph AFB TX  78 150-4709 

SUB 

cords (DD Form 149) 

REQUESTED  ACTION:  Applicant  requests  the  endorser’s  duty  title  and  final  evaluator’s 
position  be  changed  on his  Enlisted  Performance Report  (EPR)  closing  4  Feb  97.  He  also 
requests he be awarded Chief Master Sergeant (E-9).  This advisory will only address the EPR 
issue. 

BASIS FOR REQUEST:  Applicant bases this request on the fact the endorser signed his EPR 
while in the position of the  8  Fighter Wing Commander (8 FW/CC).  Applicant states this  is 
evidenced by the EPR in his personnel record that shows section VI11 is marked “A” for Senior 
Rater. 

BACKGROUND: 
Form 948. 

It does not  appear applicant first requested a correction of record via AF 

FACTS:  The governing directive for the report closing 4 Feb 97 is AFI 36-2403, The Enlisted 
Evaluation System (EES), dated 15 Jul94. 

DISCUSSION:  The endorser’s duty title is incorrect on the contested report.  This is evidenced 
by  the  AF  Form 35, Request  and Authorization for Assumption oflAppointment to  Command, 
dated 14 Feb 97, on which the endorser was granted temporary appointment of command for the 
8*  Fighter Wing, effective 23  Feb 97.  Furthermore, the endorser states he was the  8*  Fighter 
Wing Commander on G-series orders when he signed the contested EPR on 4 Mar 97. 

We  cannot  determine when  or  where  the  change  was  made  to  the  final  evaluator’s position, 
however, we believe it was done based  on the erroneous duty title.  AFI 36-2403, para 4.12.4, 
lists the position of squadron commander as an example of an “Intermediate Level” or “C level” 
evaluator.  It  is  apparent  someone  determined the  final  evaluator’s  position  was  mismarked 
because  of  the  duty  title  used,  and  they  changed  the  final  evaluator’s  position  from  “A”  (a 
position for  used  for wing  commanders) to  “C”  (a position  used  for  squadron  commanders). 
This particular change was only made to  the  original report  filed  in the  applicant’s  Selection 
Folder.  The  copy  filed  in  the  applicants  Unit  Personnel  Record  Group  still  shows the  final 
evaluator’s position as “A”. 

RECOMMENDATIONS:  Based  on  our  revi 
request  to  change the  endorser’s duty  title  to 
evaluator’s position block to indicate, “Senior 

e  recommend  approval  of  the  applicant’s 
ighter  Wing  Commander”  and 
the  final 

D E P A R T M E N T   O F  T H E  AIR  FORCE 

H E A D Q U A R T E R S  A I R   F O R C E   P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H  A I R   F O R C E   B A S E  T E X A S  

MEMORANDUM FOR  AFPCAIPPPAB 

AFBCMR 

FROM: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB 

550 C Street West, Ste 9 
Randolph AFB TX  78 150-47 1 1 

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Records 

Requested Action.  The applicant is requesting the AFBCMR correct his Enlisted Performance 
Report (EPR) closing 4 Feb 98 and automatic promotion to CMSgt.  We will address the 
supplemental promotion consideration issue should the request be approved. 

Reason for Request.  The applicant states the duty title for Block VI11 “A” marked Senior Rater 
for Colonel Penar should be 8” Fighter Wing Commander. 

Facts.  See AFPC/DPPPAB Ltr. 

Discussion.  The first time the report was considered for promotion was cycle 97E9 to chief 
master sergeant (promotions effective Jan 98 - Dec 98).  Should the AFBCMR void the report in 
its entirety, upgrade the overall rating,  or make any other significant change, providing he is 
otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration 
beginning with cycle 97E9.  The applicant claims that he will not be selected for promotion 
during the supplemental process even if the change is made to the EPR.  We strongly disagree 
with his request for an automatic promotion to CMSgt.  If a correction is made to the EPR he 
will be provided supplemental promotion consideration in accordance with approved policy and 
procedures - the same policy and procedures applicable to his contemporaries under similar 
circumstances. 

Recommendation.  We defer to the recommendation of AFPCAIPPPAB concerning a correction 
to the EPR.  Recommend his request for an automatic promotion to CMSgt be denied. 

Chief, InquiriedAFBCMR Section 
Enlisted Promotion & Mil Testing Br 

D E P A R T M E N T   O F  T H E  A I R   F O R C E  

H E A D Q U A R T E R S   AIR  F O R C E   P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H  AIR  F O R C E   B A S E  T E X A S  

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPC/DPPPAB 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX  78 150-47 10 

Requested Action.  The applikant requests correction of the 4 Feb 97 enlisted performance 
report (EPR) and direct promotion to the grade of Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt) as if selected 
for promotion during the 97E9 promotion cycle. 

Basis for Request.  The senior rater’s duty title on the contested EPR was erroneous.  As a 
result, someone moved the “X” in Section VIII, FINAL EVALUATOR’S POSITION from block 
A, SENIOR RATER, to block C, INTERMEDIATE LEVEL.  He requests the Board grant him 
direct promotion to the grade of CMSgt because he does not believe a supplemental promotion 
board will consider the changes significant enough to select him for promotion. 

Recommendation.  Deny. 

Facts and Comments. 

a.  The application is timely.  The applicant did not file a similar appeal under AFI 

36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, as would have been 
appropriate.  However, we routed the case through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board 
(ERAB) and they have corrected the contested EPR.  A copy of their  1 Jul98 decision 
memorandum is included with our advisory. 

b.  AFI 36-2403, The Enlisted Evaluation System, 15 Jul 94, is the governing 

directive. 

c.  In support of his appeal, the applicant includes a copy of the contested and 

proposed corrected version of the 4 Feb 97 EPR; a 7 Apr 98 memorandum  from HQ ACCAGI; 
a copy of his Senior NCO (Noncommissioned Officer)  Evaluation Brief; copies of decoration 
citations; and copies of several of his EPRs. 

d.  The ERAB approved the applicant’s request to correct the Feb 97 EPR.  A copy 
of the official “corrected copy” is attached to the ERAB decision memorandum.  This advisory 
will address the applicant’s request for a direct promotion to the grade of CMSgt. 

e.  We concur with the advisories written by HQ AFPCmPPPEP,  12 Jun 98, and 

HQ AFPCDPPPWB, 17 Jun 98, and do not believe a direct promotion to the grade of CMSgt 
to be appropriate in this instance.  To do so would circumvent the competitive nature of the 
promotion process and would be unfair to all the other Senior Master Sergeants (SMSgts) who 
also had corrections made to a portion of their records but did not receive a direct promotion. 
However, we would not object to the Board directing he receive supplemental promotion 
consideration to the grade of CMSgt in accordance with Air Force policy. 

Summary.  Based on the evidence provided, our recommendation of denial is appropriate. 

& 

0  CEE.HOGA 
Chief, BCMR and SSB Section 
Directorate of Pers Program Mgt 

Attachment: 
HQ AFPUDPPPAE Memo, 1 Jul98, w/Atch 

1 Jul98 

MEMORANDUM FOR 95 MSSIDPMPE 

FROM:  HQ AFPC/DPPPAE 

550 C Street West, Ste 8 
Randolph AFB, TX  78 150-47 10 

SUBJECT.:  AFI 36-2401 Decision: 
Report Closing:  4 Feb 9 

The AFI 36-2603 application submitted b 

was partially approved 

by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under AFI 36 240 1.  The Board 

correct his 4 Feb 97 report.  The ERAB was not empowered to 
request for a direct promotion to CMSgt; therefore, his 

application will continue processing under AFI 36-2603 for consideration of that request. 

Please destroy the report listed above and insert the attached corrected report. 

Review any attachments (LOEs, letters of mitigation, etc.) to the uncorrected report and, 
if appropriate, attach them to the corrected report.  If applicable, PDS has been updated. 
Please provide a copy of this memorandum to SMSgt Royal notifying him of the Board's 
decision. 

SIGN0 

KENNETH R. WHITT, MSgt, USAF 
Supt, Evaluation Reports Appeal Sec 
Directorate of Pers Prgm Mgmt 

Attachment 
Corrected 4 Feb 97 Report 

I.  RATEE IOENTIFICATION  DATA IReadAM6-2403 carefully before camplearing anyitem) 

SENIOR ENLISTED PERFORMANCE REPORT IMSCTthru CMSGJ) 

6 

fiom.  5  Feb 96 

335 

I Annual 

0 

Inellicient  An 
unprolessional 
per lormer 

0 

Good perlormer 
Performs routine 
duties satisfactorily 

0 

Excellent perlormer 
Consistently producer 
high qualtly work 

The  exception 
Absolutely  superior 
in all areas 

Lacking.  Needs 
considerable unprovement. 

Sufficient.  Gets lob 
accomplished. 

Extensive knowledge of 
all primary duties and 
related positions. 

Excels in knowledge 01 
all related positions 
Mastered all duties 

IConsiVer whether ratee motivates peers or subordinates, maintains discipline, sets and enforces standards. 

evaluates subordinates fai+  and consistently, plans and oiyankes work, and fosters teamwork) 

/Consider how well ratee evaluates situations andreaches logicalconclusionsl 

lConsrder rateej dedication andpreservation of traditionalmilitary  values  integrity andlovalfvl 

(Consider how well member uses time and resources) 

3.  LEADERS HIP 

Inellective. 0 

4.  M A N  A G E RI A L  S K I L L S 

Inellectwe 

5. JUDGEMENT 

0 

Pool 

6  PROFESSIONAL OUALITIES 

Unpiolessional. 
unreliable 

I 

I 

Manages resources 
in a satislactory 
manner. 

1 

1 
1  0 

I 

Sound 

1 

I 

l o  

Meets expectations 

7  COMMUNICATION SKILLS 

/Consider raaree's ability to organize and express tdeasl 

I 

Unable to communicate 
elleclwely 

Organizes and expresses 
thoughts satislactorily 

I 

I 0 

I 

Highly ellective 
leader. 

I 

Skillful and 
competent 

I 

I 

Emphasizes logic and 
decision making 

1 

i 

Sels an example  lor 
oiheis to lollow 

ideas  clearly and n 

concisely 

Organiier and expresser 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

E~ceptionally 
ellective leader. 

Dynamic.  capitalizes 
on  all opportunilies 

Highly respecled 
and skilled 

Epmnnizes ihe Ani 
Force piolessional 

w 

Hgghly skilled  wrilel 
and comunicalor 

Compare :his ratee with others of :he same grade and AfS. 
reconimendalion tor increased fesponsibi%iies.J 

for  CMSgts. :his is a 

I 

I 

N O 1  

RECOMMENOEO 

NOT RECOMMENOfO 

AT  THIS TIME 

CONSIDER 

READY 

IMMEOlATf 
PROMOTION 

4 '

 

' 

IV.  PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 

I 

RtCOMMfNOATION 

RATfR'S RATfR'S 

R f C O M M E N O A I I O N  

I 
I 

I 

I 
I 

V.  RATER'S  COMMENTS 
-  Unmatched  leader and  superb manager--took his element to heights thought  impossible before his arrival 
-  Directed  initial  beddown of  GBU-1 S/AGM- 130 precision strike weapon  systems--found and fixed several 
equipment, manning, training, and  funding shortfalls--enabled  Wing to meet critical  wartime taskings 
-  Led charge to help fix flight's dilapidated facilities--inspection and correction program  termed  "Strength" 
by  Munitions Team Chief during the Wing's December  1996 HQ PACAF Quality Air Force Assessment 
-- Continued  to validate  inspection procedures for over 90 structures and  10,000 line items--pivotal  to 

Wing's  "Excellent" rating  and squadron winning  1996 USAF Maintenance  Effectiveness Award 

-  Realigned  munitions  work  force--placed civilians  in non-critical  positions,  releasing military personnel  to 
warfighting positions--enhanced  flight's ability to successfully accommodate critical wartime activity 
-  Spearheaded effort to completely revise Base Support Plan (BSP) and Munitions  Employment Plan (MEP) 
-- Coordinated  deploying force equipment and  munitions requirements and developed  comprehensive 

production, flow, and reception plans--made BSP and MEP highly effective war-planning tools 

-  Superstar whose performance and potential are outstanding.  Promote now and make him a flight chief 
certify that  in accordance with AFI 36.2403 an initial leedback session was conducied on 
,ession was conducted on 

16 AUg  96  . ///not accomplished  state the reason). 

4  Ap r  96 

, and a midterm leedback 

IAMg. CRAOf. BR OF  SVC.  ORCN.  COMO & LOCATION 

I

L

I  Ammo Chief 

E

 

I OAT€ 
1 

4  Feb97 

Recognized Wing leader with a warrior spirit--aggressive, dedicated, dtelligent--leading  the Wolf Pack 
Led  flight through  near-perfect  L996 Department of Defense Explosive Safety Board  inspection--incredible 
Directed  production of  2,000 bombs supporting 850 sorties during highly successful Cope Thunder  '96 
Coordinated  massive munitions realignment  with 7 AF and  PACAF, identified  77,000 excess munitions 
for redistribution, freed  up over 7,500 sq feet of storage space--critical for beddown of  follow-on  forces 
Make him an AMMO Flight Chief--his potential can only be realized in this  job--promote immediately 
ME. CRAOf.  BR Of  SVC.  ORGN.  COMO &LOCATION 

. __--  1  DUTY  TITLE 

I 

1  OIC  Munitions  Flieht 

Exceptional  leader-the  person I  turn to  for critical, on-the-spot munitions-related  logistics decisions 
-- Introduced  improved  munitions  prepositioning  and  flow plans--cut generation times by  over 30 percent 
Crucial  player in  Wolf  Pack's  "Excellent" aircraft generation during Jan 97 HQ PACAF Initial  Response 
Readiness Inspection--constant  defect-free  munitions  flow resulted  in 48 F- 16s generated  in under  10 hours 
Brilliant  leadership and  insight--top  1 percent--ready to be a flight chief and  Chief Master Sergeant now! 

~~ 

I  NONCONCUR 

~ 

lNIA  tor CMSgt or  CMSgt selecteel 

980 I  6 6 f