RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00831 (Case 2)

            131.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect he was promoted  to  chief  master
sergeant (E-9).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In Dec 87, he was inappropriately charged with  being  absent  without
leave  (AWOL),  which  automatically  canceled  his  line  number  for
promotion to senior master sergeant (E-8).  In Jul 98, he applied  for
and the AFBCMR granted reinstatement of his line number for  promotion
to E-8, effective 1 Feb 88.  He believes he would have  attainted  the
grade of E-9 had he had the opportunity to compete and  thinks  it  is
only fair that he be awarded promotion to E-9.  Based on his  military
record and years of service, he has no doubt that he would  have  been
promoted to E-9.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal  statement
and additional documents associated  with  the  issues  cited  in  his
contentions.  These documents are appended at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
11 Sep 70.  He was promoted to the grade  of  master  sergeant  (E-7),
with an effective date and date of rank of 1 May 84.  Applicant's last
10 Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) reflect an  overall  evaluation
of “9” for the rating periods ending 7 Dec 85 through 25 Aug 89 and an
overall evaluation of “5” (new rating system) for the  periods  ending
25 Aug 90 through 16 Jul 93.

On 30 Sep 94, the applicant was relieved from active duty,  under  the
provisions of AFR 35-7 (sufficient service for retirement) and retired
in the grade of master sergeant (E-7), effective  1 Oct  94.   At  the
time of his retirement, he had completed a total of 24  years  and  20
days of active service.

On 2 Mar 99, by majority vote, the AFBCMR considered  and  recommended
approval of applicant's request for promotion to E-8.  On 12  Apr  99,
the Deputy for Air Force  Review  Boards  directed  the  applicant  be
promoted to E-8, with an effective date of 1  Feb  88,  and  that  his
grade at the time he was relieved  from  active  duty  and  ultimately
retired was E-8 rather than E-7; and, that his  narrative  reason  for
separation be changed to “voluntary retirement.”   The  applicant  has
provided a copy of the Record of Proceedings (ROP), Docket Number  98-
02050, at Exhibit A.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Enlisted Promotion &  Military  Testing  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB,
stated that present Air Force policy does not allow for  an  automatic
promotion as the applicant is requesting.  The applicant retired 1 Oct
94 in the grade of master sergeant (E-7).  On 12 Apr  99,  the  AFBCMR
promoted him to senior master sergeant (E-8), with an  effective  date
and date of rank of 1 Feb 88.  Because the  applicant  was  ineligible
for promotion consideration to E-9, prior to his 1 Oct  94  retirement
date, he had never taken the USAF  Supervisory  Examination  (USAFSE),
which is an integral part of the weighted factors and the  Senior  NCO
promotion selection process.  Without a USAFSE test score, it  is  not
possible to provide the applicant supplemental consideration  for  any
previous promotion cycles.  The board score the applicant needed to be
selected also determines which benchmark records would be  used  as  a
basis  of  comparison  during  the  supplemental  selection   process.
Without a USAFSE test score it is not possible to apply the  mechanics
of this process and provide the applicant  supplemental  consideration
to E-9 as previously indicated in their 18 Aug 98 advisory opinion.

As to  the  applicant’s  allegation  that  based  on  his  performance
reports, management skills and successful completion of the Senior NCO
Academy, he was a “shue win” for attaining the grade  of  E-9,  DPPPWB
disagrees with the applicant that he  would  have  been  automatically
promoted to E-9 based on his record.   DPPPWB  stated  that  only  one
percent of the enlisted force can serve in the grade of  E-9.   DPPPWB
indicated that, based on the applicant’s date of rank (DOR) to E-8  of
1 Feb  88,  he  would  have  met  the  time-in-grade  requirement  for
consideration to E-9 for the 91S9, 92S9, 93S9 and 94S9 cycles prior to
his retirement, providing he had been recommended by his commander and
had been otherwise eligible.  The average  selection  rate  for  these
four cycles was 11.05%.  Only 11 from an eligible  population  of  100
were selected.

DPPPWB recommended the applicant’s request for an automatic  promotion
to E-9 be denied (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 4 May
01 for review and response.  As of this date,  no  response  has  been
received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________

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 injustice.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that
promotion to chief master sergeant (E-9)  is  warranted.   Applicant’s
contentions  are  duly  noted.   However,  considering  the  extremely
intense competition  for  promotion  to  E-9  and  the  absence  of  a
promotion board score, we  are  in  agreement  with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary  responsibility  and
adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having  suffered  either
an error or an injustice.  In view of the above and absent 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 7 August 2001, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
                    Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
                Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Feb 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 13 Apr 01.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 4 May 01.





                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE

                                   Chair