RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01869

                             COUNSEL:  None

                             HEARING DESIRED:  No



_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His line number for promotion to master sergeant (MSgt) be reinstated.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After formal selection and official announcement by the  Air  Force  of  his
promotion to MSgt, his Center Commander informed him of a discrepancy  which
reverses his promotion selection.  The discrepancy was not  created  by  him
and was not in his control.  He did everything possible, and more, prior  to
the promotion selection to assure he was prepared and ready  for  promotion.
He believes the mistake was created by the promotion system, it  is  clearly
not his fault, it  should  not  have  occurred,  he  deserved  to  keep  the
promotion, and the decision to reverse his promotion is completely unjust.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits  a  personal  statement,  Airman
Promotion Data Verification Record, dated 12 November  1997;  Personal  Data
Review, dated 27 February 1998; Official Release of  Promotion;  Commander’s
Letter; AFPC Worldwide Web  Release;  WAPS  Score/Promotion  Notice;  Center
Superintendent’s  Indorsement  Letter;  Enlisted  Performance  Report;   and
Section Commander’s Indorsement Letter.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade  of
technical sergeant.

The applicant was tentatively selected for  promotion  to  MSgt  during  the
initial 98E7  cycle  per  Promotion  Sequence  Number  (PSN)  04719.0.   The
tentative promotion was canceled when it  was  determined  during  the  data
verification check that his records had been erroneously updated to  reflect
the award of a Soldiers Medal (worth 5 points).  When the five  points  were
subtracted from his score, it fell below the scored required  for  selection
in his promotion Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC).   When  he  was  initially
considered with the erroneous decoration his total score was 346.74 and  the
score required for selection was 346.02.

EPR profile since 1995 reflects the following:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

            02 Mar 95             5
            01 Mar 96             5
            02 Mar 97             5
            11 Dec 97             5

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion &  Military  Testing
Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and  states  that  while  the
applicant believes his promotion should be reinstated because of  the  error
which caused his nonselection was no fault of his,  the  fact  remains  that
had he been considered with the correct decoration  points  he  would  never
have been selected for promotion  during  the  98E7  cycle.   Personnel  are
informed when promotions are first announced that they  are  tentative  (the
applicant claims he was not informed of this), pending a  data  verification
(a comparison of the computer data with  the  paper  copies  of  the  source
documents in the records).  When  an  error  is  detected  during  the  data
verification process, regardless of what caused the  error,  the  correction
is  made  to  the  individual’s  record  and  he/she  is  reconsidered   for
promotion.   If  the  score  drops  below  the  cutoff  score  required  for
promotion they become a nonselect.  This is what happened  in  the  case  of
the applicant.  Therefore, if the AFBCMR were to promote  the  applicant  it
would be authorizing a promotion for an individual who would not  have  been
selected during cycle 98E7 had his decoration points been updated  properly.
 Consequently, there is no valid reason to promote the applicant to MSgt,  a
grade that he was never legally selected.  To do so would be grossly  unfair
to the other 12 individuals in the applicant’s AFSC who have a higher  total
score than his but cannot be promoted because  their  total  score  is  also
below the cutoff  score  of  346.02  required  for  selection.   They  don’t
disagree the applicant is worthy of promotion,  as  he  contends.   However,
during  each  promotion  cycle  there  are  hundreds  of  truly  outstanding
individuals who are also worthy of promotion but cannot be promoted  because
their total score does not equal the cutoff score required for selection  in
his/her promotion AFSC - a cutoff score established by a quota  mandated  by
projected vacancies.   Based  on  the  rationale  provided,  they  recommend
denial of applicant's request.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  applicant  reviewed  the  advisory  opinion   and   states   the   data
verification that he conducted in November 1997 and February 1998  does  not
reflect such a medal recorded in his promotion data, and he  was  not  aware
that this medal was ever included in his personnel  records.   In  actuality
he had certain knowledge  to  the  contrary.   He  verified  his  decoration
history on two separate occasions to assure its accuracy.   Therefore,  when
the promotion results were officially released on 4 June 1998, he  knew  the
information considered for his promotion was undoubtedly accurate.   He  did
his part by reviewing and ensuring  his  data’s  accuracy;  and  because  of
this, he had complete faith in the  promotion  process  when  his  immediate
commander announced his selection for  promotion.   He  considers  his  base
commander’s announcement of his selection for promotion as binding since  he
is the promotion authority.  When he announces a  promotion,  it  should  be
accurate and binding, not having stipulations attached which the  individual
doesn’t have  control  over,  such  as  a  system’s  error.   If,  in  fact,
promotions are tentative, informing promotees at the  official  announcement
would be imperative.  However, this never occurred  in  his  situation.   No
one informed him, either verbally or in  writing  that  this  promotion  was
tentative.  He would like to reiterate the facts pertaining to  his  appeal.
The  promotion  system  is  supposed  to  be  an  incentive  for   deserving
performers.  It also serves the Air Force, collectively,  to  promote  those
who demonstrate  the  ability  to  lead  the  Air  Force  and  the  military
organizations to the success of  the  mission.   And  as  justified  in  his
original letter, his senior leaders and performance appraisals  reflect  and
substantiate this purpose.  He was served  an  injustice  by  the  promotion
selection process, by officially announcing his selection for promotion  and
subsequently reversing the decision based on their failures, not his.   This
outcome has directly affected his  future  plans  with  the  Air  Force  and
limited his career opportunities.

In support of his appeal, applicant submits a statement  from  the  Director
of Personnel/HQ Sq Sect CC, stating applicant was not notified  verbally  or
in writing that his promotion was tentative  pending  data  verification  by
the MPF when he was notified of his selection for promotion to  MSgt.   This
oversight was the
responsibility  of  the  MPF  for  which  he  (Director  of  Personnel)   is
responsible and has been corrected.

Applicant's complete response, w/attachment, is attached 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 filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence  of  probable  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  and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.  We note that  the  applicant  was
selected for promotion pending a data verification.  However, once the  five
points  for  the  erroneous  award  were  subtracted,  his  score  was   not
sufficient for him to be promoted.  It is  regrettable  that  his  commander
acted on the applicant’s tentative selection for promotion with  a  ceremony
without waiting for the data  verification.   However,  the  Board  believes
that the applicant was treated no differently than other airmen  in  similar
situations.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we  find
no compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

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.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 17 December 1998, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
      Mr. Edward C. Koenig, II, Member
      Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member
      Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner (without vote)

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 June 1998, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 14 July 1998.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 August 1998.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 5 August 1998,
                       w/atchs.





                             VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                             Panel Chair