RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02525

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the grade of technical  sergeant  (E-6)  during  promotion
cycle 97E6.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not given fair consideration for promotion  after  errors  were  made
during Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) testing for cycle 97E6.

The applicant states that an individual in  his  Air  Force  Specialty  Code
(AFSC) was promoted to the grade of technical  sergeant  during  cycle  97E6
with a lower total promotion score than he had scored.   He  notes  that  in
his AFSC (2A3X2) there are three shreadouts (i.e, a, b,  and  c)  at  the  5
skill level.  When the  7  skill  level  is  obtained,  the  shreadouts  are
removed and all E-5s test for promotion together.   During  cycle  97E6,  an
error created promotions for AFSC 2A372B.  At least one E-5 he knows of  was
notified that he was selected for promotion in the erroneously created  AFSC
2A372B.  Had he been included in the proper career field (2A372), his  total
promotion score would have been  below  the  promotion  cutoff.   After  the
error was discovered,  his  promotion  was  canceled.   Through  the  appeal
process he had his promotion selection returned.  He does not  begrudge  the
individual for doing everything in his power to correct an error  caused  by
no fault of his own.  However, he does have an issue with the fact that  his
total  promotion  score  exceeded  that  of  the  individual  selected   for
promotion.

The 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
staff sergeant (E-5).

During promotion cycle 97E6 personnel in AFSCs  2A3X2,  2A3X2A,  and  2A3X2B
were  initially  considered  separately  for  promotion  to  the  grade   of
technical sergeant.  The error was discovered and all personnel assigned  to
these AFSC were considered under AFSC 2A3X2.

The applicant total WAPS score for promotion during cycle 97E6  was  326.39.
The total score required for promotion selection  in  the  applicant’s  AFSC
(2A3X2) was 329.27.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this  application
and states that during the initial 97E6 promotion cycle, personnel in  AFSCs
2A3X2, 2A3X2A, and 2A3X2B were considered for promotion separately, when  in
fact they should have all been considered  together  in  AFSC  2A3X2.   Four
individuals considered in AFSC 2A3X2B and one individual considered in  AFSC
2A3X2B were initially selected for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  technical
sergeant.  When everyone was reconsidered in one AFSC (2A3X2) and  realigned
on the new order of merit listing, all four  of  the  individuals  who  were
initially selected for promotion in AFSC 2A3X2A remained selects since  they
all scored higher than the  correct  and  newly  established  329.27  cutoff
score required for promotion.  However, the individual initially  considered
in AFSC 2A3X2B became a nonselectee because his  original  score  of  326.04
fell below the newly established cutoff score  of  329.27  required.   Since
this error was not his fault, he petitioned the  AFBCMR  and  his  promotion
was reinstated.  Once the error was corrected and AFSCs 2A3X2,  2A3X2A,  and
2A3X2B were all considered for promotion in AFSC 2A3X2, there were  a  total
of 268 eligible  and  40  selectees  with  the  cutoff  score  required  for
promotion being 329.27.  The applicant’s total score  for  cycle  97E6  when
considered correctly is 326.39 which is below the cutoff score required  for
promotion.  The individual who the applicant is referring to  was  initially
considered in AFSC 2A3X2B  and  was  the  only  one  in  the  AFSC  who  was
initially selected for promotion with a  total  score  of  326.04.   He  was
notified of his selection prior to the error being detected.  As  previously
indicated, this individual later became a nonselectee when he was  correctly
considered in AFSC  2A3X2.   They  believe  the  reason  the  promotion  was
reinstated was because he had already been made aware of his selection  only
to have it canceled because of an error that was made by the Air  Force  and
over which he had no control.  In the case of the applicant,  he  was  never
selected for promotion during cycle 97E6 as his total  score  never  equaled
the score required for selection.  There is no valid reason to allow him  to
be promoted to technical sergeant as he is requesting, a grade to  which  he
was never selected.  To do so would certainly be  unfair  to  the  other  55
individuals whose total  score  is  below  the  cutoff  score  required  for
promotion.  Therefore, they recommend denial of the applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and  states  that  he  began
this process because he is more  qualified  under  the  Air  Force  enlisted
promotion system than another individual who was promoted.   This  point  is
not addressed by the Air  Force.   The  Air  Force  twice  states  that  the
individual promoted ahead of him was done so because of an  error  that  was
made by the Air Force and over which he had no control.   He  believes  this
exact logic also exists in his case.

The applicant’s complete response 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.  After  thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence of record and  noting  the  applicant’s  contentions,  we  are  not
persuaded that he has been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.   The
applicant cites the case of an individual in his AFSC who received  a  lower
score and was promoted through the correction of records process.   However,
we note that unlike the applicant, the referenced individual  was  initially
considered in AFSC 2A3X2B  and  was  the  only  one  in  the  AFSC  who  was
initially  selected  for  promotion  with   a   total   score   of   326.04.
Furthermore, this individual was notified of his promotion  selection  prior
to the error being detected and later  became  a  nonselectee  when  he  was
correctly considered in AFSC 2A3X2.  Although the applicant contends he  too
should be promoted since his score was higher than  this  individual,  since
the applicant was never selected for promotion during cycle  97E6,  we  find
no basis  to  warrant  his  promotion  through  the  correction  of  records
process.  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 28 January 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Member
                  Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Aug 97, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 4 Sep 97.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Sep 97.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Oct 97.




             BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                  Panel Chair