RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01305
                                       INDEX CODE:  131.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                  COUNSEL: NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXXX                           HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to chief  master  sergeant  (CMSgt)  during  promotion  cycle
02E9.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There would have been two promotion quotas in his Air Force  Specialty  Code
1A4X0, Air Battle Manager, instead of one  if  proper  procedures  had  been
followed  to  ensure  everyone  eligible  for  promotion  consideration  was
weighable at the time selects were run.  Since he was the  number  one  non-
select in his career field, the second promotion quota would have been his.

In support of his application, he provided a personal statement; a  copy  of
the 02E9 promotion cutoffs;  excerpts  of  AFI  36-2605,  paragraphs  A9.13,
Testing Notification and A9.10, Scheduling Promotion Testing; a copy  of  an
AFSOC/XPQ e-mail; an excerpt of an information  paper  concerning  Weighable
versus Non-weighable Records; an excerpt  of  AFI  36-2502,  paragraph  1.2,
Active Duty Airmen program Elements, Major  Commands;  a  copy  of  AFPC/DPA
letter dated 17 January 2003;  and  a  copy  of  the  02E9  Weighted  Airmen
Promotion System (WAPS) Score Notice.  The applicant’s complete  submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in  the  grade  of  senior
master sergeant (E-8).  He was considered and non-selected for promotion  to
chief master sergeant (E-9) during cycle 02E9 (promotions effective  January
through December 2003).  The applicant’  score  was  652.50  and  the  score
required for selection in his AFSC was 688.25.

The following is a resume of the applicant’s EPR profile:

      PERIOD ENDING          PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

    24 Jul 93                     5
    24 Jul 94                     5
     1 Apr 95                     5
     1 Apr 96                     5
     1 Apr 97                     5
    20 Nov 97                     5
    20 Nov 98                     5
    20 Nov 99                     5
    20 Nov 00                     5
    20 Nov 01                     5

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial.  DPPPWB states that to promote the  applicant
would not be fair or equitable to the 89 other “number one” non-selects  who
cannot be promoted because their total score did  not  equal  that  required
for selection in their AFSC.

In order to compete for promotion, one must first  be  eligible  and  second
must be “weighable.”  To be  considered  weighable  for  CMSgt,  a  person’s
weighted   factors   including   enlisted   performance   reports    (EPRs),
decorations, USAFSE,  time-in-grade  and  time-in-service  must  be  updated
and/or filed in the senior noncommissioned officer (SNCO)  selection  folder
to ensure fair and equitable consideration during the original  select  run.
A non-weighable record is  one  where  one  or  more  weighted  factors  are
missing  from  a  person’s  promotion   file   and;   therefore,   promotion
consideration is withheld until all required data is updated.

The applicant was  the  number  one  non-select  of  the  seven  individuals
considered for promotion in his AFSC.  There  was  one  eligible  individual
who had not tested prior to the select run because  he  was  deployed  on  a
contingency temporary duty (TDY) and  was  therefore  non-weighable.   Since
the eighth eligible candidate’s record was  non-weighable  at  the  time  of
original selections, his record was not considered.  There were a  total  of
117 people considered non-weighable during cycle 02E9  because  their  tests
were not on file at the time original selections were made in October  2002.


Promotion quotas are based on the number of programmed vacancies divided  by
the number of eligibles for that grade which gives a  selection  rate.   The
selection rate is multiplied by the number of eligibles in each AFSC,  which
gives the number of selections in each AFSC.  There were seven eligibles  in
the 1A4X0 AFSC at the time selects were run on 29  October  2002,  resulting
in one promotion quota.  Air Staff policy  guarantees  that  each  promotion
AFSC will receive at least one promotion quota.  There is no guarantee  that
a set number of stripes will be given to any  AFSC.   To  do  so  would  run
counter to the Congressionally imposed law restricting the top two  enlisted
grades to three percent of the force.   The  AFPC/DPPPWB  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He  feels  the  Air  Force  advisory  has  not  addressed  the  issue   of
accountability to written Air  Force  Instructions  (AFIs)  mandating  all
eligible personnel be tested and made weighable for the given cycle.   His
question was not answered as to why the major command (MAJCOM), the  unit,
the military personnel flight (MPF), the Testing Control Officer (TCO), or
the Test and Evaluation Office did not do something to ensure  the  eighth
eligible individual tested as directed by the AFIs.  The Air Force goal is
to mirror as close as possible to 100% the weighable list to the  eligible
list.  What led to the 1A4X1 AFSC having seven eligibles instead of  eight
clearly should not have occurred.

The Air Staff withholds a portion of promotion quotas in anticipation that
a certain number of individuals were non-weighable  at  the  time  of  the
original selection for legitimate reasons such as medical, emergency leave
or short-notice TDY requirements.  This was not the  case  of  the  eighth
eligible candidate.  The eighth candidate was notified of his  eligibility
two months prior to his deployment date, which was plenty of  time  to  do
something regarding his promotion testing.  Since he was not able to  test
prior to his deployment or test at his deployment location, the  unit  had
the obligation to ensure he was weighable and able to  test  by  returning
him early from his  deployment  or  rescheduling  his  deployment  to  the
following rotation.

He is in a significantly different circumstance than the other 89  “number
one” non-selects.  Clearly, the 1A4X1 AFSC should have had  two  promotion
quotas.  The Air  Force  needs  to  look  into  this  matter  because  the
promotion to CMSgt is very  prestigious.   The  one  person  that  no  one
ensured tested cost him a stripe and a position as a proud  CMSgt  in  the
United States Air Force.  The applicant’s review 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.  The applicant asserts  he  should
be promoted because one individual in his AFSC who was eligible to test  did
not and if this  member  had  tested,  the  applicant,  as  the  number  one
nonselectee, would have been promoted.  Based on the evidence  provided,  we
are not persuaded that the applicant  is  the  victim  of  an  error  or  an
injustice.   Promotion  quotas  are  based  on  the  number  of   programmed
vacancies divided by the number of eligibles for  that  grade  resulting  in
the selection rate.  Based on the number of eligibles, it appears  that  the
selection rate of one for the applicant’s  AFSC  was  correctly  calculated.
Air Force policy only guarantees that each promotion AFSC  will  receive  at
least one promotion and there is no  guarantee  that  the  applicant’s  AFSC
would have received a second promotion quota had  all  potentially  eligible
members been weighable.  We note that, according to the Air Force office  or
primary responsibility, there were  117  potentially  eligible  members  who
were considered nonweighable during the contested  promotion  cycle  because
their tests were not on file at the time original selections were made.   We
believe it is safe to assume that the majority  of  these  individuals  were
serving in specialties other than the applicant’s AFSC.   We  have  seen  no
evidence that would lead us  to  believe  that  the  applicant  was  treated
differently  from  other  similarly  situated  members,  i.e.,  number   one
nonselects  in  other  specialties,  or  that  his   promotion   score   was
incorrectly calculated.  Therefore, we agree with the assessment by the  Air
Force office of primary  responsibility  and  find  no  basis  on  which  to
favorably consider this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of 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 9 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
            Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
            Mr. James W. Russell III, Member


The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-2003-01305
was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Mar 03, with attachments.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 12 May 03.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 23 Jun 03.




                                  BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                                   Panel Chair