RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02808

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reconsidered for promotion 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.  Due to  errors  made
by the Air Force during cycle 97E6 in his AFSC (2A3X2),  he  was  not  given
fair consideration for promotion.

The applicant notes the error occurred when a few  individuals  were  scored
outside their proper AFSC.  These individuals were scored  in  AFSC  2A372B;
however, the B shred-out should not exist at the 7 skill  level.   He  knows
that one of these individuals was selected for  promotion.   Upon  realizing
this error, the Air Force canceled the individual’s  promotion  due  to  the
fact that his total score was below the  promotion  cutoff  of  his  correct
AFSC (2A372); however, this individual’s promotion  was  reinstated  through
the appeal process.  The applicant believes that in  the  best  interest  of
fairness,  all  personnel  who  scored  above  this  individual  should   be
promoted.

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  327.80.
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.  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 328.80 which is below the cutoff score required  for
promotion.  The individual who the  applicant  is  referring  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.  The applicant’s total score is  328.80  which  is
2.76 points higher than the individual who had his promotion  reinstated  by
the Board.  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 this is  the
same office that recommended reinstatement of  the  referenced  individual’s
promotion selection.  He  believes  this  was  a  mistake  that  created  an
inequitable promotion  cycle.   It  introduced  an  error  as  criteria  for
promotion which applied to only a  few;  therefore,  the  promotion  process
during this cycle did not treat everyone within his promotion group  equally
or fairly.  When the referenced individual’s promotion was  reinstated,  the
problem was compounded and now effects several individuals, rather than  the
original one person.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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.  The applicant  contends  he  should  be
reconsidered for promotion and selected since  his  score  was  higher  than
this individual.  However,  he  has  not  provided  sufficient  evidence  to
persuade us  that  he  was  denied  fair  and  equitable  consideration  for
promotion or that his records were in error at the time he  was  considered.
Furthermore, 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 16 Sep 97, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 8 Oct 97.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Oct 97.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Nov 97, w/atchs.




             BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                  Panel Chair