RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02286

            COUNSEL: MAJ THOMAS L. FARMER

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive a direct promotion to master  sergeant  with  an  effective
date of promotion and a date of rank as a promotee in the  SDI  8J000,
Correctional Custody career field for 1998 or 1999.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Improper manipulation of eligibility criteria for the Weighted  Airmen
Promotion System (WAPS) testing in his career field wrongfully  denied
him promotion to the  rank  of  master  sergeant  in  1998  and  1999.
Personnel ineligible to test in the Correctional Custody career field,
Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 8J000,  competed  in  this  field  and
gained promotion to master sergeant.  To correct  this  injustice,  he
asks to be promoted to that grade with the date of  rank  assigned  to
the ineligible  1998  or  1999  selectees.   In  1998,  two  technical
sergeants ineligible to test in his career field were permitted to  do
so.  Both finished ahead of him.  He was the  number  two  non-select.
An AFPC/IG investigation confirmed the ineligibility of the number one
non-select.  Despite this fact, this  same  technical  sergeant  again
tested under SDI 8J000 career field in 1999.  This  time  he  received
the promotion and the applicant was the top non-select. The member has
submitted letters from his area defense counsel,
the AFPC/IG and other documentation.

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 TSgt (E-6).

The promotion cycles at issue are 98E7 to MSgt (promotions effective 1
August 1998 and 1 July 1999) and 99E7 (promotions effective  1  August
1999 and 1 July 2000).  The Special Duty Identifier (SDI) in  question
is  8J000,  Correctional  Custody  Supervisor.   Based  on  the  small
eligible population in this SDI, four for the 98E7 cycle and  two  for
the 99E7 cycle, there  was  only  one  select  for  each  cycle.   The
applicant’s total promotion score for the 98E7 cycle  was  327.91  and
for the 99E7 cycle, his  score  was  291.45  under  the  Special  Duty
Identifier (SDI) 8J000.  The select for 98E7 scored 404.54; the select
for 99E7 scored 373.10.

The  Superintendent,  High  Level  Inquiries  Division,  HQ   AFPC/MSH
conducted an investigation  concerning  testing  irregularities.   The
allegations were partially substantiated that a member was  improperly
assigned to the Special Duty Identifier.   They  further  investigated
the possible impact of that action with regard to the  98E7  promotion
cycle results and determined there was no impact and thus,  no  change
to the applicant’s selection status.  The complete  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  AFPC/DPPPWB,   reviewed   the
applicant’s  request  and  recommended  denial.   An   individual   is
considered for promotion in  the  Control  Air  Force  Specialty  Code
(CAFSC), Reporting Identifier (RI), or Special Duty Identifier  (SDI),
that he/she possesses on the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date  (PECD)
for the respective promotion cycle.  The PECD  is  the  date  used  to
determine which decorations and Enlisted  Performance  Reports  (EPRS)
are to be used in the promotion  consideration  (weighted  points  are
assigned for each), as well as which RI, SDI, or CAFSC the member will
be considered.  Both individuals the  applicant  believes  should  not
have been considered with him held SDI 8J000 on the 31 Dec 97 PECD for
the 98E7 cycle and  were  properly  considered.   The  Personnel  Data
System (PDS) reflects the individual who was selected for  this  cycle
held SDI 8J000 effective Oct 97, two months prior to  the  31  Dec  97
PECD and was a valid select.  The other individual who was the  number
one nonselect (based on total points assigned for  decorations,  EPRs,
time-in-grade (TIG), time-in-service (TIS), and test) was assigned the
SDI effective 1 Nov 97.  Even if these two individuals  had  not  been
considered in SDI 8J000, the  applicant  would  still  not  have  been
selected for this cycle.  Another individual who had a total score  of
331.53, 3.64 points higher than the applicant’s score of 327.91, would
have been selected. It would have made no difference if there had been
four eligible or two eligible; the applicant would still not have been
selected based on his total score.

During the 99E7 cycle, there were  two  eligible  in  SDI  8J000,  the
applicant and TSgt W____ who  was  selected  with  a  total  score  of
373.10.  The applicant’s total  score  was  291.45.   The  applicant’s
claim that the other individual illegally competed against him in  SDI
8J000, which prevented him from an  automatic  promotion,  is  without
basis.  The 3rd Support Group Commander selected TSgt W___ to fill the
8J000 position.  The change was effective       1 November 1997, prior
to the 31 December 1997 and 31 December 1998 PECDs for  the  98E7  and
99E7 cycles.  The commander stated that in the best  interest  of  the
Air Force and the 3rd Wing, he authorized TSgt W’s___  AFSC  (SDI)  be
changed from 8T000 (Professional Military Education (PME)  Instructor)
to 8J000 (Correctional Custody  Supervisor).   HQ  PACAF/DPPET  stated
that the 3rd Wing had an open position (8J000) that was funded and not
manned.  TSgt W___ was placed in that position and given a duty  title
of Superintendent, Complaints and Inquiries.   This  action  was  also
approved by HQ PACAF/DPA and HQ AFPC.  As recently as   1 October 1999
(after TSgt W___ had been selected for promotion to MSgt as  an  8J000
for the 99E7 cycle), the 3rd MSS/DPM concluded that all actions  taken
in 1997 to move TSgt W___ from PME Instructor Duty to  a  valid  8J000
position in the Wing IG Office were appropriate since the  local  Wing
Commander in conjunction with manpower officials  is  responsible  for
determining the appropriate AFSCs to be reflected on the Unit Manpower
Document.  This individual was in the 8J000 SDI billet from 1 November
1997 until he retrained into the 3A0X1 AFSC effective 29  March  1999.
As such, TSgt W___ was appropriately considered  and  selected  as  an
8J000 for the 99E7 promotion cycle to MSgt.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s counsel disagreed with the recommendation not to grant
his applicant’s request  for  direct  promotion  to  master  sergeant.
Counsel stated that TSgt W___ performed none  of  the  special  duties
associated with 8J000 identifier.   His  assignment  to  the  position
afforded him an undeserved and  improper  competitive  advantage  over
personnel, such as the  applicant  who  was  actually  performing  the
demanding duties required in the Correctional Custody career field.

Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

In support of the applicant’s appeal, MGen F___ submitted a letter  in
behalf of the applicant (Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice warranting  promotion  to
the grade of master sergeant.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence
of record, we conclude the following:

      a.    With respect to promotion cycle 98E7, it appears that four
individuals were considered in SDI 8J000 and only one was selected for
promotion.   The  applicant  believes  that  two  of  the  individuals
considered, to include the selectee,  were  ineligible  for  promotion
consideration; however, the IG substantiated that only  one  of  these
two  individuals,  the  number  one  non-select,  was   not   actually
performing the duties of SDI 8J000, Correctional Custody, on the PECD.
 Nonetheless, the selectee for cycle 98E7 was performing these duties,
and  without  question,  was  eligible  for  promotion  consideration.
Additionally, there was one other individual who tested and apparently
scored higher  than  the  applicant.   Therefore,  regardless  of  the
applicant’s contentions, he would not have been a selectee  for  cycle
98E7.

      b.    Notwithstanding the above finding,  we  believe  that  the
applicant should be promoted to the grade of master sergeant by  cycle
99E7.  Through a series of changes to his Air  Force  Specialty  Codes
(AFSC), the actual selectee for cycle 99E7, who was the number one non-
select for cycle 98E7, apparently held the SDI of 8J000  on  the  PECD
for that cycle.  However, while  the  Air  Force  indicates  that  the
selectee was properly considered and selected, it is apparent to  this
Board that he was not performing the duties of  Correctional  Custody,
rather he was performing duties of the  Superintendent  of  Complaints
and Inquiries in the Wing IG office, merely filling a vacant,  funded,
and unmanned billet.  While this may  have  been  appropriate  on  the
basis that it is the Wing Commander’s  prerogative  to  determine  the
appropriate AFSCs to be reflected on the Unit Manning Document, in our
opinion, the applicant was precluded from receiving fair and equitable
consideration for promotion.  In this respect, the  applicant  appears
to have performed Correctional Custody duties for 11 years,  as  noted
by  the  Commander,  37  TRW,  Air  Education  and  Training  Command.
Therefore, we believe that any doubt should be resolved  in  favor  of
the applicant and we recommend his records be corrected to the  extent
indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he  was  promoted  to
the grade of master sergeant, effective and with a date of rank  of  1
May 2000.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 14 Feb 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Panel Chair
            Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Member
            Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Jul 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. IG Report, withdrawn.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 13 Sep 00
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 29 Sep 00.
      Exhibit F. Counsel Response, dated 26 Oct 00.
      Exhibit G. Letter, 37 TRW/CC, dated 8 Nov 00.






                 PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR 00-02286





MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF


      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the
authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat
116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was
promoted to the grade of master sergeant, effective and with a date
of rank of 1 May 2000.







      JOE G. LINEBERGER
      Director

      Air Force Review Boards Agency