RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00831 (Case 2)
		131.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect he was promoted to chief master sergeant (E-9).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In Dec 87, he was inappropriately charged with being absent without leave (AWOL), which automatically canceled his line number for promotion to senior master sergeant (E-8).  In Jul 98, he applied for and the AFBCMR granted reinstatement of his line number for promotion to E-8, effective 1 Feb 88.  He believes he would have attainted the grade of E-9 had he had the opportunity to compete and thinks it is only fair that he be awarded promotion to E-9.  Based on his military record and years of service, he has no doubt that he would have been promoted to E-9.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions.  These documents are appended at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 11 Sep 70.  He was promoted to the grade of master sergeant (E-7), with an effective date and date of rank of 1 May 84.  Applicant's last 10 Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) reflect an overall evaluation of “9” for the rating periods ending 7 Dec 85 through 25 Aug 89 and an overall evaluation of “5” (new rating system) for the periods ending 25 Aug 90 through 16 Jul 93.

On 30 Sep 94, the applicant was relieved from active duty, under the provisions of AFR 35-7 (sufficient service for retirement) and retired in the grade of master sergeant (E-7), effective 1 Oct 94.  At the time of his retirement, he had completed a total of 24 years and 20 days of active service.

On 2 Mar 99, by majority vote, the AFBCMR considered and recommended approval of applicant's request for promotion to E-8.  On 12 Apr 99, the Deputy for Air Force Review Boards directed the applicant be promoted to E-8, with an effective date of 1 Feb 88, and that his grade at the time he was relieved from active duty and ultimately retired was E-8 rather than E-7; and, that his narrative reason for separation be changed to “voluntary retirement.”  The applicant has provided a copy of the Record of Proceedings (ROP), Docket Number 98‑02050, at Exhibit A.

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate Air Force office.  Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that present Air Force policy does not allow for an automatic promotion as the applicant is requesting.  The applicant retired 1 Oct 94 in the grade of master sergeant (E-7).  On 12 Apr 99, the AFBCMR promoted him to senior master sergeant (E-8), with an effective date and date of rank of 1 Feb 88.  Because the applicant was ineligible for promotion consideration to E-9, prior to his 1 Oct 94 retirement date, he had never taken the USAF Supervisory Examination (USAFSE), which is an integral part of the weighted factors and the Senior NCO promotion selection process.  Without a USAFSE test score, it is not possible to provide the applicant supplemental consideration for any previous promotion cycles.  The board score the applicant needed to be selected also determines which benchmark records would be used as a basis of comparison during the supplemental selection process.  Without a USAFSE test score it is not possible to apply the mechanics of this process and provide the applicant supplemental consideration to E-9 as previously indicated in their 18 Aug 98 advisory opinion.

As to the applicant’s allegation that based on his performance reports, management skills and successful completion of the Senior NCO Academy, he was a “shue win” for attaining the grade of E-9, DPPPWB disagrees with the applicant that he would have been automatically promoted to E-9 based on his record.  DPPPWB stated that only one percent of the enlisted force can serve in the grade of E-9.  DPPPWB indicated that, based on the applicant’s date of rank (DOR) to E-8 of 1 Feb 88, he would have met the time-in-grade requirement for consideration to E-9 for the 91S9, 92S9, 93S9 and 94S9 cycles prior to his retirement, providing he had been recommended by his commander and had been otherwise eligible.  The average selection rate for these four cycles was 11.05%.  Only 11 from an eligible population of 100 were selected.

DPPPWB recommended the applicant’s request for an automatic promotion to E-9 be denied (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 4 May 01 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________

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 injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that promotion to chief master sergeant (E-9) is warranted.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted.  However, considering the extremely intense competition for promotion to E-9 and the absence of a promotion board score, we are in agreement with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice.  In view of the above and absent 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 probable 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 7 August 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	            Panel Chair
	              Member
                Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Feb 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 13 Apr 01.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 4 May 01.

                                   
                                   Chair