ADDENDUM TO

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00057
            INDEX CODE:  131

            COUNSEL:  None

                 HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

In an application, dated 2 Jan 98, the  applicant  requested  that  he
receive supplemental promotion  consideration  for  promotion  to  the
grade of senior master sergeant for cycles 96E8 and 97E8.

On 17 Sep 98,  the  Board  recommended  that  the  Recommendation  for
Decoration Printout (RDP) for award of the MSM, First Oak Leaf Cluster
(1OLC), for the period 14 Sep 92 to 14 Sep 95, was prepared on  22 Feb
96, and that he be provided supplemental consideration  for  promotion
to the grade of senior master  sergeant  for  all  appropriate  cycles
beginning with cycle 96E8 (see Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was informed that since the AFBCMR decision on  27 Oct  98  on  his
behalf did not state specifically to  “recalculate”  the  board  score
that the board members had the option…they elected not to recalculate.
 It is his contention that by not recalculating the board  score,  the
promotion  board  invalidated  the  AFBCMR  decision   to   give   him
supplemental consideration.  He was also informed that  the  promotion
board “did not feel” that the inclusion  of  the  Meritorious  Service
Medal (MSM) would have an impact on his board  score.   Another  thing
that he feels is totally  unfair  is  that  the  promotion  board  was
informed as to who he was and the reason he was receiving supplemental
consideration and for the system to be truly fair  and  unbiased,  the
board members should “only” be provided a stack of records to  compare
and assign  a  board  score  accordingly.   The  “who”  and  “why”  is
irrelevant and grossly prejudicial.  He feels that Air Force Personnel
Center (AFPC) has acted in bad faith and  used  terminology  and  word
bantering to achieve what they wanted in the first place…not  to  give
him supplemental consideration.  They in  essence  considered  not  to
consider and are trying to pass this off as fair  consideration.   All
he wanted was an opportunity to receive what  he  had  been  denied…an
equal impartial chance at a promotion…exactly  as  everyone  else  got
that met the 96 and 97E8 boards.  He requests the Board reconsider his
application.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  AFPC/DPPPWB,   reviewed   the
applicant’s request and indicated that  although  the  AFBCMR-directed
supplemental promotion board consideration was convened and  conducted
in a manner consistent with Air Force guidelines, they would  like  to
address each of the applicant’s points of concern.

The applicant’s statement that no board scores were furnished  to  him
is correct.  Board scores in  supplemental  cases  are  only  used  as
internal tools to compare against benchmark records and  to  establish
whether or  not  the  applicant's  record  was  competitive  with  the
established  benchmarks.   There  is  an  inherent  danger   that   an
individual, if given this internal score, will attempt to  add  it  to
his/her weighted factors and apply the results against the  previously
announced cutoff score for their career field, thus claiming  that  he
or she is entitled to promotion.   This  claim  would  be  faulty,  as
records going before supplemental boards are not measured against  all
other records in the career field.  They are only measured against the
benchmark records of individuals who, regardless  of  their  selection
status, attained at or near the score required for selection  in  that
particular career field.

In the applicant’s assertion about whether  or  not  AFPC  chooses  to
“recalculate” the board score, it is unclear  to  DPPPWB  what  he  is
referring.  DPPPWB does know that  applicant’s  record  condition  (an
added decoration) caused him to be considered by what Air Force  terms
as the “optional phase” of the board for the 96E8 cycle.  This process
is explained in AFR 36-2502, Table 2.6, Rule 6, Note 3  (Rescoring  is
optional for supplemental promotion  board  consideration.   Prior  to
rescoring the record, panel members consider the type  of  error,  the
degree of impact on the promotion score,  and  the  number  of  points
needed for selection.  Those records which the panel does not  rescore
are nonselectees).  Board members under this directive do not go  back
through the entire military record.  Instead, they review  the  change
(in this case an added decoration) along with the number of points the
person would have required in order to become a selectee.   The  board
members then jointly make the decision as to whether or not the change
is significant enough to award those points.  If the board  determines
the change is not significant enough to award the required points, the
person is designated a nonselectee under that cycle.  If, on the other
hand, the board determines  the  change  could  have  had  significant
enough impact to cause the individual’s selection  for  promotion,  it
then directs a mandatory review and full-scoring of the record against
benchmark records.  In the applicant’s  case,  this  board  determined
that the added decoration would not result in  him  being  awarded  an
additional  14.76  points  required  for  promotion  for  cycle  96E8.
Therefore, the board declared him a nonselectee in accordance with the
above directives.  The applicant asks in his letter how can his  added
decoration “not have an impact.”  DPPPWB’s answer is that a  board  of
highly experienced chief master sergeants and colonels sworn to uphold
the standards  of  fairness  determined  that  the  addition  of  this
decoration (for which he was already given 5 points  weighted  credit)
could  not  have  gained  him  sufficient  additional  points  (14.76)
required in order to cause his promotion.

For the applicant’s 97E8 review, the above became a  different  story.
For this review, the optional board determined  the  added  decoration
could  have  resulted  in  him  attaining  the  points  required   for
promotion, as this cycle the number of points required being 5.30 vice
the 14.76 required for the 96E8 board.  Because the  board  felt  this
number of points was attainable, they directed his record go before  a
full review against benchmark records.  Unfortunately  for  him,  this
full review against benchmarks also resulted in his nonselection.

DPPPWB further states that contrary to the applicant’s allegation,  at
no time  is  the  name  of  the  member  being  provided  supplemental
consideration, identified in any way to the board.  The applicant also
states that he believes it is “irrelevant and grossly prejudicial” for
a board to know what change occurred in the record in order  to  cause
supplemental  consideration.   Air  Force  policy   states   that   on
educational and decoration changes, the board must know  in  order  to
appropriately consider the “type of error, the degree of impact on the
promotion score, and the number of points needed for  selection”  (AFR
36-2502, Table 2-6, Note 3).  The Air Force does not view these  types
of errors or omissions as having  the  same  degree  of  impact  on  a
promotion evaluation  record  as  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR)
changes or additions or changes to a Professional  Military  Education
(PME)—the latter two items requiring  mandatory  review  of  the  full
record.  Although the applicant may disagree, the Air  Force  contends
that to automatically afford him an entire  new  and  full  review  of
items not in error at the  time  his  record  met  the  original  AFPC
Central Evaluation Board would not  meet  the  standards  of  fairness
applied to other Air Force members who get only one  review  of  their
records.



DPPPWB states that the applicant’s record was considered fairly and in
accordance with AFBCMR Memorandum 98-00057, dated 27 Oct 98,  and  the
policy and procedures approved by senior management,  to  include  the
Secretary.  There is no indication of any irregularities or  that  his
case was mishandled in any way.  Therefore, he is not entitled  to  an
automatic promotion to the grade  of  senior  master  sergeant  as  he
requests.

A complete copy of the  Air  Force  evaluation,  with  attachment,  is
attached at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided a  three-page
response.

Applicant’s  complete  response,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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  not
persuaded that he should be promoted to the  grade  of  senior  master
sergeant.  His contentions are duly noted; however,  we  do  not  find
these uncorroborated assertions, in and  by  themselves,  sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air  Force.   We
therefore agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and 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.  Therefore, 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 28 February 2000, under  the  provisions  of  Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
                  Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit F.  ROP, dated 27 Oct 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit G.  Letter fr applicant, dated 20 Jun 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 Sep 99, w/atch.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Sep 99.
     Exhibit J.  Letter fr applicant, dated 24 Sep 99, w/atchs.



                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chair