RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03175
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be given supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of chief
master sergeant (CMSgt) (E-9) for cycle 01E9.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He does not believe his records were given equal consideration  before
the 01E9 promotion board.  Although he was selected as a major command
(MAJCOM) first sergeant of the year, his board  score  was  only  360.
All other first sergeants receiving this honor  had  board  scores  of
382.5 or higher.  He believes his board  score  was  affected  by  his
staying at a single unit much longer than a normal length of time.  Of
the seven individuals receiving a score of 360  or  lower,  none  were
MAJCOM award winners.

Applicant provides an overview of how his duty  assignment  worked  to
his  disadvantage  during  his  promotion  consideration  and  why  he
remained in the assignment for such a long period of  time.   He  does
not believe his assignment should be held against him in the promotion
process.

In support of his appeal,  applicant  provides  a  copy  of  a  letter
written to the President of the United States by his wife, a  copy  of
the written nomination for his First Sergeant of the Year award, and a
copy of his record that met the 01E9 promotion board.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served on active duty  from  7  Apr  75  to  30  Apr  03
achieving the grade of senior  master  sergeant  (SMSgt)  (E-8).   The
applicant was considered for promotion to CMSgt  for  the  third  time
during cycle 01E9.  His total score during the board was 639.72 with a
score of 642.98 needed for promotion in  his  AFSC.   A  total  of  35
individuals out of 164 were selected  in  the  applicant’s  Air  Force
Specialty Code (AFSC) during  cycle  01E9  for  a  selection  rate  of
21.34%.  The overall select rate was 22.06%.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request.    The
promotion board’s task is to  review  and  evaluate  each  candidate’s
potential for service in the next  higher  grade.   This  judgment  is
based on each individual’s job performance,  leadership,  professional
competence,  breadth  of  experience,  job  responsibility,   academic
education, specific achievements, and the information contained in the
Senior NCO Evaluation Brief.  The same  three-member  panel  evaluates
all eligibles competing in the same Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) or
Chief Enlisted Manager (CEM) code being considered.  Each Board member
subjectively compares one NCO’s qualifications against  those  of  all
others in the same AFSC or CEM.  The  procedures  used  to  score  the
records ensure each panel member scores each record independently  and
fairly.  The applicant’s record was evaluated fairly and equally using
the same process for all of the records within his AFSC or CEM.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluation, the  applicant  discusses
his knowledge of and past support of the Air Force  promotion  process
in his duties as a first sergeant.  However, although he continued  to
support the system after he was not selected  for  promotion,  in  his
heart he did not feel his records  received  a  fair  evaluation.   He
notes that none of the first  sergeants  in  his  major  command  were
promoted to CMSgt.

The applicant further discusses how working directly  for  his  senior
rater put him at a disadvantage.  The disadvantage resulted  from  the
limitation  on  the  number  of  lines  available  to   document   his
performance because his rater could only use  Section  V  on  the  EPR
form.  The applicant also discusses why he served a longer than normal
tour in the duty assignment he was at when considered for promotion.

The applicant’s complete response 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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary  responsibility  and  adopt  its  rationale  as  the
primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not  been  the
victim of an error  or  injustice.   In  his  appeal  it  appears  the
applicant seeks to indict the enlisted evaluation system  by  claiming
the level of his rater resulted in fewer lines being available on  the
OPR form  to  document  his  performance,  the  assignment  system  by
claiming he was penalized for remaining in the same assignment  for  a
longer than normal period, and the promotion board for failing to give
him a board score at least equal to other  first  sergeants  receiving
similar first sergeant of the  year  honors.   However,  the  evidence
presented  is  insufficient  to  conclude  these  systems  result   in
disparate treatment among promotion eligible senior NCOs in general or
did  so  specifically  in  this  case.   The  applicant’s  case  rests
primarily on his  belief,  and  maybe  others,  he  was  deserving  of
promotion.  He does not, however, make the case he should have been in
the group determined to be “best qualified” for promotion.  Therefore,
in the absence of 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 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 Docket  Number  BC-2004-
03175 in Executive Session on 11 January 2005, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
      Mr. Patrick C. Dougherty, Member
      Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Oct 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 3 Nov 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Nov 04.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 26 Nov 04.




                                   GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                   Panel Chair