RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02092

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to senior master sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to an administrative error by HQ AFPC the board  that  scored  his
peers during the  SMSgt  Promotion  Cycle  00E8  did  not  review  his
records.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of master sergeant.

The applicant took  the  USAF  Supervisory  Examination  (USAFSE)  for
promotion to senior  master  sergeant  on  4  Nov  99.   His  date  of
separation (DOS) was keyed in  the  personnel  data  system  (PDS)  as
20000110 vice 20011028 by  his  servicing  military  personnel  flight
(MPF).  This error identified him as being  ineligible  for  promotion
and his records were deactivated.

According to AFI 36-2502 a service member who  has  a  mandatory  DOS,
high year tenure (HYT), or an approved retirement before the first day
promotions are incremented in the cycle (1 Apr 00 for the 00E8  cycle)
is automatically ineligible for promotion consideration.   This  error
eliminated him from being considered by  the  00E8  Evaluation  Board.
The MPF notified AFPC of the error and they  activated  his  promotion
records  on  27  Mar  00.   The  applicant  was  considered   by   the
supplemental promotion board that convened on 1 May  00  and  was  not
selected.


EPR profile since 1997 reflects the following:

                     PERIOD ENDING    OVERALL EVALUATION

      01 May 97        5
      01 May 98        5
      01 May 99        5
      01 May 00        5

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  reviewed  the  application  and
states that the Senior NCO Supplemental Evaluation Board consists of a
General Officer (Board President) and panels of 1 Colonel and 2  Chief
Master Sergeants.  The applicant’s weighted score is  subtracted  from
the score that is required for selection of his  Air  Force  Specialty
Code (AFSC) or Chief Enlisted Manager (CEM) Code and  this  determines
what board score is needed to be selected by the original board.  Then
the applicant’s record is benchmarked with records one-half to a point
and a half below the board score needed if possible, and three records
at the board score needed.  The panel compares the supplemental record
against the benchmark records in determining their decision to promote
or not to promote.   The  applicant’s  records  under  this  selection
process must be better than all the  records  below  the  board  score
required for selection and equal to or better than at least one of the
records that had  the  board  score  needed  for  promotion.   Service
members who are supplementally  considered  do  not  receive  a  score
notice, they are only notified of selection or nonselection.

After each promotion cycle, personnel who compete  for  promotion  are
furnished a score notice which informs them of how  they  compared  to
all the other members who were competing for promotion, in their  AFSC
or CEM.  In the applicant’s supplemental consideration when his  total
weighted score of 299.09 was subtracted from the cutoff score required
for selection in his AFSC of 649.03, he then needed 349.94  points  to
be selected for promotion.  If the applicant had  been  considered  by
the initial 00E8 Evaluation Board he would have needed a  board  score
of 352.50 to have been selected.  During the supplemental process, his
records were benchmarked with three records that a received  a  352.50
board score and three records that received a 345.00  board  score  by
the initial evaluation board.  The panel then compared the applicant’s
record against the benchmark records in determining to promote or  not
promote.  The applicant’s record at no  time  was  identified  as  the
individual requiring supplemental consideration.

The supplemental panel  does  not  attempt  to  rescore  the  member’s
records and assign a board score.  The panel compares the supplemental
record against the benchmark records using  a  scoring  scale  of  six
through ten.  Based on three panel members, the minimum  score  is  18
and maximum is 30.  The scoring scale of six through ten  is  used  to
rank order the seven records only.  Again, there  is  no  board  score
assigned since the number assigned to each record is used as  a  basis
of comparison only.  The  Enlisted  Performance  Branch  informed  the
applicant’s MPF on 18 May 00, to advise the applicant that he was  not
selected and to provide him his weighted promotion scores.

DPPPWB also states that it is regrettable that due  to  the  erroneous
deactivation of his records he was not considered for promotion at the
original   evaluation   board.    However,   there   are   established
supplemental promotion procedures for members who were not  considered
during the original board.  He was considered based on the policy  and
procedure  used  to  consider  his  peers  in  a  similar   situation.
Therefore, the fact that a board score can’t be  provided  under  this
process and the fact that he  was  not  selected  during  supplemental
consideration is not a basis to grant automatic  promotion;  therefore
they recommend denying the applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Staff  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 8 Sep 00, for review and response.  As of this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 a thorough review
of  the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we   are
unpersuaded that relief should be  granted.   Applicant’s  contentions
are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions,  in  and  by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive
to override the rationale provided by the offices of  the  Air  Force.
While it is understandable that the applicant is disappointed that  he
was not selected for promotion during the  supplemental  process,  the
fact remains that he was treated no differently than other individuals
similarly situated.   He  was  considered  based  on  the  policy  and
procedures established to remedy this type of situation.  Further, the
applicant does not provided persuasive evidence  that  he  would  have
been a selectee during the initial board process had his records  been
considered.  We therefore adopt the rationale expressed as  the  basis
for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain  his  burden
that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Hence, we  find
no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 30 November 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

            Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
            Mr. William E. Edwards, Member
            Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 July 2000, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Senior NCO Evaluation Brief.
      Exhibit C. Letter,HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 18 August 2000.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 8 September 2000.




                       VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                       Panel Chair