RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02003
            INDEX CODE:  131.05

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect that he was promoted to the  grade
of chief master sergeant (CMSgt) during the 98E9 cycle.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Redress via the current Air Force administrative channels  has  failed
to produce any favorable results.  Promotion approval pertinent to his
case can only be resolved with approval of the  Air  Force  Board  for
Correction of Military Records.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, and documentation pertaining to the promotion issue and the
correction of his records.

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 (SMSgt), having been promoted to that grade  on
1 Jan 95.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD)  is
5 Jun 73.

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letter  prepared  by  the  appropriate  office  of  the   Air   Force.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record  of
Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Enlisted  Promotion  and  Military  Testing  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPWB,
reviewed this application and recommended denial.  DPPPWB  noted  that
AFBCMR Memorandum 99-00929, dated 30 Dec 99, directed the  applicant's
records be corrected to show  the  closeout  date  for  award  of  the
Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), Second Oak Leaf Cluster  (2OLC),  was
31 Jul 98, rather than 15 Sep 98.  It  further  directed  that  he  be
provided supplemental consideration for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
CMSgt for the 98E9 promotion cycle, with inclusion of the MSM  (2OLC).
The applicant was provided  this  supplemental  consideration  by  the
Enlisted Supplemental Promotion Board that was conducted from 1 May 00
to 5 May 00, and not selected.  On 3 Jun 00 the applicant appealed  to
the Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, requesting his assistance
in obtaining a promotion to CMSgt.  He maintained that  comparing  his
record    to    benchmark    records    to     determine     promotion
selection/nonselection without  regard  for  causation,  is  a  flawed
process.  He disagreed with the benchmark records used as a  basis  of
comparison to determine his select/nonselect status.  His  inquiry  to
the CSAF was  referred  to  HQ  AFPC/DPPP  for  response.  The  Chief,
Promotion, Evaluation,  and  Recognition  Division  responded  to  the
applicant's inquiry on behalf  of  the  CSAF.   The  response  further
explained  the  supplemental  process,  clarified  how  the  benchmark
records to be used  as  a  basis  of  comparison  were  selected  (the
applicant appeared to have a misunderstanding of the process  used  to
select benchmark records), and why the applicant was not  selected  in
the  supplemental  process.   It  was  further  explained  that   this
supplemental promotion process allows those individuals who had errors
in their records to be  fairly  considered,  and  at  the  same  time,
ensures that only those equally qualified  to  the  selectees  in  the
original process are selected.  Also, past and  present  leaders  have
approved this process, in place since 1977, and have determined it  to
be both fair and equitable.

According to DPPPWB,  the  supplemental  promotion  consideration  was
provided in accordance with the policies and  procedures  approved  by
senior management, to include the Secretary--a  process  that  selects
individuals to SMSgt and CMSgt based on changes to their  record,  and
in some cases, changes directed by the AFBCMR.  It is also  a  process
that senior leadership has determined to be fair and  equitable.   The
fact that the applicant was not selected under this process  does  not
indicate it is either flawed or inadequate.  There was  no  indication
there were any irregularities or the promotion  consideration  of  the
applicant was mishandled in anyway.  Therefore, there is no basis  for
an automatic promotion to CMSgt as the applicant has requested.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant indicated that his aim is  not  focused
on rebutting the contents of the advisory opinion, but rather  to  re-
clarify his redress to the  AFBCMR.   He  is  not  claiming  that  the
current supplemental process is flawed.   Quite  the  contrary--it  is
merely inadequate to handle rare administrative  cases  such  as  his.
The supplemental board process is not the best  avenue  for  promotion
selection or nonselection when a member's record  under  consideration
has been grossly affected by a serious breach  of  administrative  due
process.  In such  instances,  promotion  selection  or  non-selection
should rest with the  AFBCMR,  acting  as  the  authority  with  final
administrative appellate jurisdiction.  Further, it is grossly  unfair
to have the supplemental promotion board consider  his  record,  which
had been denied administrative  due  process  due  to  the  deliberate
unprofessional act of a superior officer in his rating chain,  compare
it to other records with no blemishes, and attempt to apply  an  equal
rating scale.  This is the fallacy in the current system, and  is  the
basis for his previous recommendation---since the current supplemental
board process is not  established  to  hear  the  merits  of  a  case,
particularly in such cases where there is strong evidence to support a
violation of due process, resolution defaults  to  the  AFBCMR.   This
would abate the subjectivity  between  central  promotion  boards  and
supplemental boards, allow a more  fair  evaluation  of  records  with
missing decorations, or missing data verification record information.

Applicant’s complete response is 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 regarding the applicant’s
request for promotion to the grade  of  chief  master  sergeant.   The
applicant's  complete  submission  was  thoroughly  reviewed  and  his
contentions were duly noted.  However, we do not find the  applicant’s
assertions and the documentation presented in support  of  his  appeal
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air
Force office of primary responsibility (OPR)  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-cut
evidence  indicating  that  he  was  treated  differently  than  other
similarly situated individuals, we agree with  the  recommendation  of
the OPR and adopt their rationale as the basis for our  decision  that
the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he
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.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Oct 00, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair
      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Jul 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 Aug 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 25 Aug 00.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 29 Aug 00.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
                                   Panel Chair