RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03980
            INDEX CODE:  131.01, 107.00
                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the grade of chief master sergeant (CMSGT), his date
of rank adjusted to the original date he would have been promoted  and
he be paid all back pay and allowances.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was denied supplemental promotion consideration in violation of AFI
36-2502, Airman Promotion Program.  AFPC/DPPPW considered the addition
of a promotion statement to  his  enlisted  performance  report  (EPR)
insufficient to warrant supplemental consideration.

In support of his request, the applicant submitted a copy of  AF  102,
Inspector General (IG) Personal and Fraud,  Waste  &  Abuse  Complaint
Registration, and a copy of the AFPC/IG complaint analysis.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of Senior Master Sergeant.  Applicant  was  considered  and  not
selected for promotion to the grade  of  CMSgt  by  the  Chief  Master
Sergeant Central Evaluation Board for the 01E9  promotion  cycle.   On
22 October 2001, he discovered that the  word  “Promote”  was  omitted
from block VII (senior rater’s comments) of  his  EPR.   He  requested
supplemental promotion consideration through  administrative  channels
based on this change, but was denied by HQ AFPC/DPPPWM due to the fact
that he did not take corrective action prior to  the  board  convening
date.  On 15 July 2002, he submitted an exception to policy letter  to
have his corrected EPR supplementally considered, claiming that he did
not have sufficient opportunity to take corrective action prior to the
Board  convening  date.   His  exception   to   policy   request   was
disapproved, due to fact that the change to the EPR was  minimal  when
taken in context of the full  report.   The  applicant  met  the  02E9
central evaluation board and was not selected for promotion to  CMSgt.
No further action was taken on his request for an exception to  policy
to be reconsidered for the previous cycle (01E9).  On 8 Oct  2002,  an
IG complaint was filed on behalf of  the  applicant  alleging  he  was
denied supplemental promotion consideration.  The investigation  found
the  personnel  actions  taken  in   the   applicant’s   request   for
supplemental promotion consideration valid and in accordance with  AFI
36-2502, Airman Promotion Program.

The applicant was selected for promotion to the grade of CMSgt by  the
03E9 board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPWB recommends denial.  Current Air Force policy does not allow
for automatic promotion as the applicant is  requesting.   The  policy
regarding the approval of SNCO  supplemental  promotion  consideration
regarding an EPR, is in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman  Promotion
Program, Table 2.5, dated 20  August  2001  and  HQ  AFPC/DPP  081945Z
November  2000  message,  effective  22 October  2000.    Supplemental
promotion consideration is granted on a case-by-case basis for reasons
listed  in  Table  2.5.   A  member  will  not  normally  be   granted
supplemental consideration  if  the  error  or  omission  appeared  on
his/her data verification record (DVR) or in the unit personnel record
group  (UPRG)  and  the  individual  did  not  take  the   appropriate
corrective or follow up action before  the  original  board  convened.
The purpose of this change is to reduce the number of “after the fact”
changes that are initiated in an effort to get  a  second  opportunity
for promotion.  The applicant did not pursue  a  change  to  this  EPR
through the Evaluation Reports Appeal  Board  (ERAB)  until  16  April
2002, after the board convened for the 01E9 cycle.  The first time the
contested EPR was used in the promotion  process  was  cycle  01E9  to
CMSgt.  His board score was 337.50, total promotion score was  596.58,
and the score required for selection in his AFSC was 640.00.  He  then
met the 02E9 CMSgt Central Evaluation Board with the corrected EPR  in
his record and was again rendered a nonselect.  His  board  score  was
367.50, total promotion score was 642.58, and the score  required  for
selection in his AFSC was 643.83.   The  applicant  was  selected  for
promotion to CMSgt during cycle 03E9.

The DPPPWB complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
13 Feb 04, for review and comment within 30 days.  As  of  this  date,
this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice in regard  to  the  applicant’s
request for supplemental  promotion  consideration.   We  are  of  the
opinion that supplemental promotion board consideration is  warranted.
At the time he was considered for promotion by  the  01E9  cycle,  his
record contained an inaccurate EPR, which has been corrected.  Whether
the inaccurate EPR was the cause of his nonselection we are unable  to
answer.  Nevertheless, we believe that the applicant was  deprived  of
fair and equitable consideration.  Accordingly, in  order  to  resolve
any potential promotion injustice to the applicant, the Board believes
that any doubt in this matter should be resolved in his favor and that
the  applicants  corrected  record  should  be  provided  supplemental
promotion consideration by the 01E9 cycle.

4.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice warranting his  promotion
to the grade of  chief  master  sergeant  through  the  correction  of
records process.  In this regard, we note that senior NCOs compete for
promotion, in part, under the whole person concept whereby performance
reports are but one of many  things  considered  by  evaluation  board
members.  Other factors such  as  professional  qualities,  depth  and
breadth  of  experience,  leadership  and  academic  and  professional
military education are carefully assessed in  scoring  his  record  in
competition with the other eligibles.  Therefore, in  the  absence  of
clear-cut evidence that the applicant's record would have been  scored
sufficiently high to warrant his selection for promotion by the  board
in question, favorable action on his request for a direct promotion is
not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, to include Air Force Form 911, Senior  Enlisted
Performance Report, rendered for the period 27 April 2000  through  26
April  2001,  reflecting  in  Section  VII,  last  sentence  the  word
“Promote”, be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the
grade of chief master sergeant for cycle 01E9.  If AFPC discovers  any
adverse factors during or  subsequent  to  supplemental  consideration
that are separate and apart, and unrelated to the issues  involved  in
this application, that would have rendered  the  applicant  ineligible
for the promotion, such information will be documented  and  presented
to  the  Board  for  a  final  determination   on   the   individual’s
qualifications for the promotion.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket  Number  BC-2003-
03980 in Executive Session on 30 March 2004, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Panel Chair
            Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Member
            Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member

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

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Jul 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 3 Feb 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Feb 04.






                                   FREDERICK R. BEAMAN III
                                   Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2003-03980




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, to include Air Force Form 911, Senior Enlisted
Performance Report, rendered for the period 27 April 2000 through 26 April
2001, reflecting in Section VII, last sentence the word “Promote”, be
provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of chief
master sergeant for cycle 01E9.

      If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to
the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered the
applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented
and presented to the Board for a final determination on the individual’s
qualifications for the promotion.








  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

     Air Force Review Boards Agency