RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00305
            INDEX CODES:  107.00, 131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be promoted to the grade of chief master sergeant (CMSgt).

Her Air Force  Commendation  Medal  (AFCM),  First  Oak  Leaf  Cluster
(1OLC), be upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) (1OLC).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was not fairly  evaluated  against  more  seasoned  senior  master
sergeants during  the  May  98  supplemental  board  with  her  master
sergeant record.  The senior master sergeants’  records  were  grouped
with her master sergeant record during her consideration for promotion
to the grade of chief master sergeant.  Because he had “no” records in
her file as a senior master  sergeant,  she  could  not  be  evaluated
fairly.

The MSM (1OLC) was downgraded to an AFCM (1OLC) based on a  low-graded
Enlisted Performance Report (EPR)  which  as  been  removed  from  her
records.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement,
documentation pertaining to her supplemental  promotion  consideration
and her request for upgrade  of  the  decoration,  extracts  from  her
military personnel records, and other documents  associated  with  the
matter under review.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
senior master sergeant, having been promoted to that grade  on  1  Jul
93.  Her Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 16 Jul
74.  She has a projected date of separation (DOS) of 18 Aug 2000.

On 16 Jun 94, a majority of the Board recommended that the applicant’s
request that her EPR closing 30 Mar  90  be  amended  in  Section  IV,
Promotion Recommendation, to an overall “5” be denied.  On 2  Aug  94,
the Deputy for Air Force Review Boards agreed with the minority member
of the Board that the contested report should be  voided  and  removed
from the applicant’s records, and so directed.  He also directed  that
the applicant be provided supplemental  promotion  consideration  with
her corrected record.

On 5 Dec 96, the Board recommended that  the  applicant’s  records  be
corrected to reflect that the EPR rendered for the  period  31 Mar  90
through 18 Feb 91 be accepted for file in its  proper  sequence;  that
the EPR rendered for the period 31 Mar 90 through 18 Jun 91 be amended
in Section I to show the period of the report as 19 Feb 91 through  18
Jun 91 and the reason for  the  report  as  “CRO;  and,  that  she  be
provided supplemental consideration for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
senior master sergeant, which was approved by the Director, Air  Force
Review Boards Agency on 7 Mar 97.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application
and recommended approval of the applicant’s request for upgrade of her
AFCM (1OLC), for the period 9 Aug 88 to 16 Feb 91, to the MSM (1OLC).

DPPPR noted that the applicant has sought  administrative  relief  and
AFBCMR relief since 1991 to  correct  an  unjust  EPR.   According  to
DPPPR, she has  followed  guidelines,  step-by-step,  to  correct  her
records in sequential order.  Since the MSM (1OLC) was downgraded  due
to an EPR that has since been removed from her records,  the  argument
that it was downgraded because of the EPR  is  no  longer  valid.   In
DPPPR’s view, the applicant was recommended for the MSM, and  this  is
the decoration which should have been awarded.

DPPPR indicated that if  the  applicant's  request  is  granted,  they
recommend that her subsequent decorations be corrected as to grade and
oak leaf cluster:

      (1) Air Force Commendation Medal, Second Oak Leaf  Cluster,  for
the period 19 Feb 91 to 30 Jan 94, should be  Air  Force  Commendation
Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster,  and  the  grade  reflected  should  be
Senior Master Sergeant.

      (2) Meritorious Service Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster,  for  the
period 31 Jan 94 to 30 Jan 97, should  be  Meritorious  Service  Medal
with Second Oak Leaf Cluster, and the grade reflected should be Senior
Master Sergeant.

A complete copy of the DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Enlisted  Promotion  and  Military  Testing  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPWB,
reviewed this application and recommended denial  of  the  applicant’s
request for promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant.

Concerning the decoration, DPPPWB stated that if the AFBCMR grants the
upgrade request  the  applicant  would  be  entitled  to  supplemental
promotion consideration beginning with cycle 93S8 for promotion to the
grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt).  If selected for  SMSgt,  she
would be entitled to supplemental  consideration  to  CMSgt  beginning
with cycle 94E9.  Otherwise, she would  be  entitled  to  supplemental
consideration beginning with the 95E9 cycle.

DPPPWB noted that, as a result of the correction  of  the  applicant’s
records to show that the EPR rendered for the period 31 Mar 90 through
18 Feb 91 be accepted for file in its proper sequence; and,  that  the
EPR rendered for the period 31 Mar 90 through 18 Jun 91 be amended  in
Section I to show the period of the report as 19 Feb 91 through 18 Jun
91, and the reason for the report as “CRO,”  she  was  considered  for
supplemental promotion to senior master sergeant and selected for  the
94S8 cycle with a date of rank of 1 Jul 93.  Also, as a result of this
action she was supplementally considered for chief master sergeant  by
the May 98 supplemental promotion board for cycles 95E9, 96E9 and 97E9
and was a nonselectee.  The applicant was  considered  in  the  normal
promotion process for the 98E9 cycle in Oct 98 and  not  selected  and
will again be considered in the  promotion  process  to  chief  master
sergeant for the 99E9 cycle in Oct 99.

DPPPWB indicated that although the  applicant  believes  she  was  not
evaluated  fairly,  there  are  established   supplemental   promotion
procedures for those  members  who  were  not  considered  during  the
original board or considered with incorrect data,  regardless  of  the
reasons.  She was considered based on the policy and  procedures  used
to consider her peers in a similar  situation,  the  same  policy  and
procedures approved by senior management to include the  Secretary  of
the Air Force.  There was no indication there were any  irregularities
in her supplemental consideration or that her case was  mishandled  in
anyway.  The applicant was considered  in  the  promotion  process  to
chief master sergeant for the 98E9 cycle and  was  a  nonselect.   She
will be considered in the 99E9 cycle in Oct 99.  There is no basis for
an automatic promotion to CMSgt, as the applicant requests.

A complete copy of the DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In her detailed response, the applicant  indicated  that  she  request
favorable consideration of  her  appeal  based  on  the  previous  and
additional rationale she have documented and provided.   According  to
the applicant, the proven prejudice and unprofessional behavior of her
previous supervisor and the  affects  his  actions  have  had  on  her
advancement in the  Air  Force  to  the  top  enlisted  grade,  should
definitely be considered.  It was always her goal to obtain the  grade
of CMSgt and serve 30 years on active duty in the Air Force.

Applicant’s complete response  and  additional  documentary  evidence,
which includes supportive statements, are at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The portion of the application pertaining to the upgrading of  the
AFCM (1OLC) to a MSM (1OLC) was not timely filed; however,  it  is  in
the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  The portion of the application  pertaining  to  promotion  to  the
grade of chief master sergeant was timely filed.

4.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice  concerning  the  applicant’s
request that her AFCM (1OLC) be upgraded  to  a  MSM  (1OLC).   Having
carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the  recommendation
of AFPC/DPPPR and adopt their rationale as the basis for our  decision
that the applicant has been the  victim  of  either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  A review  of  the  available  evidence  reveals  that  the
applicant was recommended for the decoration  but  it  was  downgraded
because of a “4” EPR she received.  However, the EPR  has  since  been
removed from her records.  Therefore, we agree  with  AFPC/DPPPR  that
the reason for the downgrade of the decoration is no longer valid.  In
view of the above,  we  recommend  that  the  applicant’s  records  be
corrected as indicated below.

5.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable  error  or  injustice  with  regard  to  the
applicant’s request  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  chief  master
sergeant.   The  applicant's  complete   submission   was   thoroughly
reviewed, including the statement from the Vice Chief  of  Staff,  and
her contentions  were  duly  noted.   However,  we  do  not  find  the
applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in  support  of
her appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale  provided
by AFPC/DPPPWB concerning this issue.  In our view, the applicant  has
been provided the same fair and equitable promotion  consideration  as
others requiring supplemental promotion consideration.  Therefore,  in
the absence of clear and convincing evidence indicating that  she  was
treated differently than  other  similarly  situated  individuals,  we
agree with the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPWB and adopt their rationale
as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain
her burden of establishing that she has suffered either an error or an
injustice.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request for promotion to  the
grade of chief master sergeant is not favorably considered.

6.  Notwithstanding the above, based on our  proposed  corrections  to
the applicant’s award and decoration  history,  her  corrected  record
should receive supplemental  consideration  to  determine  the  impact
those corrections may have had on her considerations for promotion  to
chief master sergeant.  In our estimation, by doing so, the  applicant
will be afforded the appropriate relief based on the circumstances  of
her case and the evidence presented here.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

      a.  She was awarded the Meritorious  Service  Medal,  First  Oak
Leaf Cluster, for meritorious service during the period  9 August 1988
to 18 February 1991, rather than the  Air  Force  Commendation  Medal,
First Oak Leaf Cluster.

      b.  She was awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal, First  Oak
Leaf Cluster, in the grade of senior master sergeant, for  meritorious
service during the period 19 February 1991 to 30 January 1994,  rather
than the Air Force Commendation Medal, Second Oak Leaf Cluster, in the
grade of master sergeant.

      c.  She was awarded the Meritorious Service  Medal,  Second  Oak
Leaf Cluster, in the grade of senior master sergeant, for  meritorious
service during the period 31 January 1994 to 30 January  1997,  rather
than the Meritorious Service Medal, First Oak  Leaf  Cluster,  in  the
grade of master sergeant.

It  is  further  recommended  that  she   be   provided   supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for
all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 93S8.

If selected for promotion to the grade of senior  master  sergeant  by
supplemental   consideration,   she   be   provided   any   additional
supplemental consideration required as a result of that selection.

If  AFPC  discovers  any  adverse  factors  during  or  subsequent  to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and  unrelated
to the issues involved in this application that  would  have  rendered
the applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information  will  be
documented and presented to the Board for a final determination on the
individual’s qualifications for the promotion.

If supplemental promotion consideration results in the  selection  for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after  such  promotion  the
records shall be corrected to show that she was promoted to the higher
grade on the date of rank established by  the  supplemental  promotion
and that she is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of  such
grade as of that date.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 27 Sep 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member
      Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Nov 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 9 Feb 99.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 12 Feb 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 Mar 99.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 20 Apr 99, w/atchs.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 99-00305


MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to , be corrected to show that:

            a.  She was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal, First
Oak Leaf Cluster, for meritorious service during the period
9 August 1988 to 18 February 1991, rather than the Air Force
Commendation Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster.

            b.  She was awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal,
First Oak Leaf Cluster, in the grade of senior master sergeant, for
meritorious service during the period 19 February 1991 to
30 January 1994, rather than the Air Force Commendation Medal, Second
Oak Leaf Cluster, in the grade of master sergeant.

            c.  She was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal, Second
Oak Leaf Cluster, in the grade of senior master sergeant, for
meritorious service during the period 31 January 1994 to 30 January
1997, rather than the Meritorious Service Medal, First Oak Leaf
Cluster, in the grade of master sergeant.

      It is further directed that she be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for
all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 93S8.

      If selected for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant
by supplemental consideration, she be provided any additional
supplemental consideration required as a result of that selection.

      If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated
to the issues involved in this application that would have rendered
the applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be
documented and presented to the Board for a final determination on the
individual’s qualifications for the promotion.

            If supplemental promotion consideration results in the
selection for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such
promotion the records shall be corrected to show that she was promoted
to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the
supplemental promotion and that she is entitled to all pay,
allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.





    JOE G. LINEBERGER

    Director

    Air Force Review Boards Agency