RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00213
                                        INDEX CODE:  111.02
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXX                  COUNSEL:  NONE

                                        HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 July 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be considered for supplemental promotion  consideration  to  the
grade of chief master sergeant (CMSgt) (E-9) for promotion cycles 06E9.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her board scores for promotion board 06E9  were  well  below  average.   She
believes that her records were not appropriately judged  against  her  peers
nor reflect her true status amongst her peers.

In support  of  her  request,  the  applicant  submits  copies  of  Military
Personnel Flight Memorandum (MPFM) 06-51, her score  notice  from  promotion
cycle 04E8, supplemental  request  for  promotion,  senior  non-commissioned
officer  selection  records,  and  disapproval  of  supplemental   promotion
request with corresponding e-mails.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The  Military  Personnel  Database  indicates  the  applicant  is  currently
serving on active duty in the grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt)  (E-8)
with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 September  2004.   She  has  a  Total  Active
Federal Military Service Date of 15 October 1984 and  a  projected  date  of
separation of 10 January 2011.

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

      PERIOD ENDING          PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

    21 Feb 97                     5
    12 Jul 97                     5
    12 Jul 98                     5
    29 May 99                     5
    29 May 00                     5
    29 May 01                     5
    31 Jul 02                     5
    31 Jul 03                     5
    28 Aug 04                     5
    01 Aug 05                     5
    29 Oct 06                     5

The remaining relevant facts are contained in the Air  Force  evaluation  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s  request  for  supplemental
promotion consideration to CMSgt for promotion cycle  06E9.   DPPPWB  states
that based on the applicant’s date of rank (DOR) to SMSgt,  cycle  06E9  was
the first time she has been considered for promotion to  CMSgt.   Her  board
score was 292.50  (out  of  a  possible  450)  and  her  relative  nonselect
position was 56 out of 60 nonselects.  There were 42 eligibles  in  her  Air
Force Specialty Code (AFSC) with 12 being selected for promotion.

DPPPWB states the competition  for  promotion  to  the  top  two  grades  is
extremely intense, since by law, only three percent of  the  total  enlisted
force may  serve  in  these  grades.   Because  of  this  restriction,  many
deserving individuals cannot  be  promoted.   In  determining  who  is  best
qualified  for  promotion  to  CMSgt,  board  members  must  focus  on   the
importance of supervisory and leadership  experience  in  their  evaluation.
Board members are charged to make sure each  individual  receives  fair  and
equitable consideration and only the best  qualified  are  selected.   Panel
members  score  the  record  individually  using  a  secret  ballot  without
discussion amongst themselves.  Records are given to each panel member in  a
stack and after they are  scored,  the  ballots  are  given  directly  to  a
recorder so other panel members are not aware of the scores.   This  ensures
the record is scored independently and fairly by each panel member.   It  is
important to note that while actual scores  may  vary  between  panels,  the
specific reason why certain  panels  scored  the  way  they  did  cannot  be
determined, since this is a subjective decision.  However, since  each  AFSC
or Chief Enlisted Manager (CEM) Code is reviewed  by  a  single  panel,  all
records within the same AFSC or  CEM  code  are  evaluated  under  the  same
standard.  There are a number of factors  which  affect  board  scores;  new
panel members with different  thought  processes,  previous  eligibles  with
changes/improved records, and a large pool of new eligibles.

It is DPPPWB’s opinion that the applicant’s record was evaluated fairly  and
equally using the same process as those records she was  competing  against.


The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states in her response to the Air Force advisory opinion  that
her Enlisted Performance Reports  clearly  state  she  has  supervisory  and
leadership experience.  Her score  of  292.5  is  unjust  and  there  is  no
evidence in her records to support a “well below average”  score  as  stated
in MPFM 06-51.  Some of the CMSgts she spoke to eluded that she was  labeled
a “professional student” because she has several degrees, but  yet  the  Air
Force pushes education aggressively.  She certainly did not place  education
above the mission.  She understands it was her first time meeting the  CMSgt
board; however, at least 4 of the 12  selected  in  her  career  field  were
first time eligibles.  Regardless of the different scenarios that have  been
bestowed upon her, not one of them can  justify  her  records  being  scored
292.5.  She is asking for  a  fair  chance  that  a  supplemental  promotion
consideration will provide.

The applicant’s rebuttal 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 an error or an 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 basis for our conclusion  that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.   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 this application in  Executive
Session on 4 April 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Ms. Judith B. Oliva, Member
                 Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2007-00213:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Jan 07, with attachments.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 8 Feb 07.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Feb 07.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 8 Mar 07.




                                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                                   Chair