ADDENDUM TO
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-1999-00929
                                  BC-2000-02003
            INDEX CODE:  131.09

            COUNSEL:  GARY R. MYERS

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect he was promoted to  the  grade  of
chief master sergeant (CMSgt) during the 98E9 cycle.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 Nov 99, the Board considered an application from  the  applicant
requesting the closeout date for  award  of  the  Meritorious  Service
Medal  (MSM),  Second  Oak  Leaf  Cluster  (2OLC),  be  changed   from
September 15, 1998 to  July  31,  1998.   The  Board  recommended  his
request be granted and he be provided supplemental  consideration  for
promotion, which was accepted by the Director, Air Force Review Boards
Agency.  A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings, which  contains
the facts of this appeal and the rationale for the earlier decision by
the Board, is attached at Exhibit F.

On 17 Oct 00, the Board considered and denied an application from  the
applicant requesting his  records  be  corrected  to  reflect  he  was
promoted to the grade of chief master sergeant during the 98E9  cycle.
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings, which contains the facts
of this appeal and the rationale  for  the  earlier  decision  by  the
Board, is attached at Exhibit G.

The applicant’s counsel requests reconsideration  of  the  applicant’s
request for promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant,  alleging
the process for selection  of  benchmark  records  was  arbitrary  and
capricious.

A complete copy of  counsel’s  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB  recommended  denial  indicating  the   purpose   of   the
supplemental promotion board is to, as closely as possible,  replicate
the conditions which existed during  the  original  evaluation  board.
Since the evaluation board is subjective in nature, policies have been
put in place to bring  an  acceptable  level  of  consistency  to  the
process while at the same time recognizing  there  are  variations  in
scoring from panel member to panel member and  from  board  to  board.
One  could  argue  the  most  accurate  way  to  provide  supplemental
promotion consideration would be to reconvene  the  entire  board  and
allow panel members to score all eligible personnel  to  establish  an
order of merit.  This of course would be impractical given  the  large
numbers of eligible  personnel.   Therefore,  the  present  system  of
supplemental consideration was devised to  take  a  cross  section  of
records, with original board scores in proximity to  the  board  score
required of the applicant for promotion.  Given  the  original  policy
requiring board members to use a prescribed  scoring  scale  of  half-
point increments (6-10), the final board  score  is  a  reflection  of
relative merit of promotion  potential,  not  a  precise  mathematical
match for individuals requiring supplemental  consideration.   Rather,
the scores serve as an indicator, within a cross section  of  records,
to gauge the promotion potential of subsequent  supplemental  records.
Therefore, it is logical that benchmark records be pulled which afford
the most accurate comparison to the applicant’s records and allows the
best assessment of promotion potential.

Given this as background, AFPC/DPPPWB stated it is clear the applicant
is asking for the rules to be changed to require a scoring method that
currently does not exist.  The implication is since the precise  board
score required by the applicant does  not  exist,  the  system  should
accommodate him by lowering the requirement and  allowing  him  to  be
compared to  records  below  his  required  cut-off.   This  would  be
inconsistent with established policy and would give him  an  advantage
not afforded to others.  In reality,  the  difference  between  a  405
board score and the next established score  of  412.5  is  only  a  .5
difference in one panel member’s score.  On a scale of 6-10  then,  it
is difficult to sustain the argument that an increase of .5 is a “full
quantum level of disparity.”

According to AFPC/DPPPWB, due to the competitive nature of promotions,
particularly to CMSgt, and the subjective nature  of  scoring  records
using the current scale, there are always a number  of  well-qualified
members who are not able to  achieve  high  enough  placement  in  the
relative order of merit to be selected for promotion.  Similarly, well-
qualified members who are  approved  to  meet  supplemental  promotion
boards are often not able  to  substantially  improve  their  position
within the order of merit to secure promotion.

AFPC/DPPPWB indicated Air Force  policy  does  not  allow  for  direct
promotion and, in their view, it would be unfair  and  inequitable  to
change the rules to accommodate one  member  when  others  in  similar
situations are not afforded this opportunity.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit I.

AFPC/JA recommended denial  indicating  that  to  obtain  relief,  the
applicant must show by a preponderance of the  evidence  there  exists
some error or injustice warranting corrective  action  by  the  Board.
The governing instruction provides  precise  guidance  for  processing
senior noncommissioned  officer  (SNCO)  supplemental  boards.   These
rules have existed since 1977  to  create  a  process  that  considers
fairly those airmen with errors in their records and also promote only
those airmen equally qualified to  the  individuals  selected  in  the
original promotion board.  Contrary  to  the  applicant’s  assertions,
there is nothing about the rules governing SNCO supplemental  boards--
or how they were administered in this case--that could be construed as
erroneous or unjust.  The applicant’s complaint that he  was  unfairly
compared to five other senior master sergeants  (SMSgts)  with  scores
greater or equal to his is unmerited.  The guidelines simply provide a
representative sample of records from the original board that  are  in
proximity to the board score required for promotion.  This process was
followed appropriately in the applicant’s supplemental board.

According to AFPC/JA,  the  applicant’s  request  to  have  the  Board
essentially serve as his  supplemental  board  is  without  precedent.
Doing so would unfairly give the applicant  an  advantage  that  other
similarly situated SNCOs have not been afforded.  His record has  been
given extraordinary consideration for promotion to CMSgt during recent
years, starting with his original  promotion  board.   Notwithstanding
the  applicant’s  assertions,  the  SNCO  supplemental  board  process
provides well-established equitable standards  and  ensures  only  the
most qualified airmen are selected for promotion.

A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  counsel  on  20
Aug 04 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit K).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  In an earlier finding, the Board
determined there was insufficient evidence to warrant  any  corrective
action regarding the applicant’s request he be promoted to  the  grade
of chief master sergeant during  the  98E9  cycle.   His  most  recent
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we did not find his  assertions  and  his  supporting
documentation  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the   rationale
proffered by the Air Force offices of primary  responsibility  (OPRs).
Once again, no evidence has been presented  which  has  shown  to  our
satisfaction the applicant was not fairly and equitably considered for
promotion to chief master sergeant, or that his circumstances differed
from other individuals  in  a  similar  situation.   In  view  of  the
foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the  contrary,
we agree with the recommendation of the OPRs and adopt their rationale
as the basis for our  decision  the  applicant  has  again  failed  to
sustain his burden of establishing he has suffered either an error  or
an injustice.  Accordingly, we conclude no compelling basis exists  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this appeal.

2.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 19 Oct 04, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
      Mr. Richard S. Peterson, Member

The following additional documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR
Docket Numbers BC-1999-00929 and BC-2000-02003 was considered:

    Exhibit F.  Memorandum for Chief of Staff, dtd 30 Dec 99,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Record of Proceedings, dtd 27 Nov 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, counsel, dated 7 Nov 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 15 Jul 04.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 12 Aug 04.
    Exhibit K.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Aug 04.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair