RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01305
INDEX CODE:  131.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX			COUNSEL: NONE

	XXX-XX-XXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

He be promoted to chief master sergeant (CMSgt) during promotion cycle 02E9.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There would have been two promotion quotas in his Air Force Specialty Code 1A4X0, Air Battle Manager, instead of one if proper procedures had been followed to ensure everyone eligible for promotion consideration was weighable at the time selects were run.  Since he was the number one non-select in his career field, the second promotion quota would have been his.

In support of his application, he provided a personal statement; a copy of the 02E9 promotion cutoffs; excerpts of AFI 36-2605, paragraphs A9.13, Testing Notification and A9.10, Scheduling Promotion Testing; a copy of an AFSOC/XPQ e-mail; an excerpt of an information paper concerning Weighable versus Non-weighable Records; an excerpt of AFI 36-2502, paragraph 1.2, Active Duty Airmen program Elements, Major Commands; a copy of AFPC/DPA letter dated 17 January 2003; and a copy of the 02E9 Weighted Airmen Promotion System (WAPS) Score Notice.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8).  He was considered and non-selected for promotion to chief master sergeant (E-9) during cycle 02E9 (promotions effective January through December 2003).  The applicant’ score was 652.50 and the score required for selection in his AFSC was 688.25.  

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

	PERIOD ENDING		PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION

    24 Jul 93				5
    24 Jul 94				5
     1 Apr 95				5
     1 Apr 96				5
     1 Apr 97				5
    20 Nov 97				5
    20 Nov 98				5
    20 Nov 99				5
    20 Nov 00				5
    20 Nov 01				5

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial.  DPPPWB states that to promote the applicant would not be fair or equitable to the 89 other “number one” non-selects who cannot be promoted because their total score did not equal that required for selection in their AFSC.  

In order to compete for promotion, one must first be eligible and second must be “weighable.”  To be considered weighable for CMSgt, a person’s weighted factors including enlisted performance reports (EPRs), decorations, USAFSE, time-in-grade and time-in-service must be updated and/or filed in the senior noncommissioned officer (SNCO) selection folder to ensure fair and equitable consideration during the original select run.  A non-weighable record is one where one or more weighted factors are missing from a person’s promotion file and; therefore, promotion consideration is withheld until all required data is updated.  

The applicant was the number one non-select of the seven individuals considered for promotion in his AFSC.  There was one eligible individual who had not tested prior to the select run because he was deployed on a contingency temporary duty (TDY) and was therefore non-weighable.  Since the eighth eligible candidate’s record was non-weighable at the time of original selections, his record was not considered.  There were a total of 117 people considered non-weighable during cycle 02E9 because their tests were not on file at the time original selections were made in October 2002.  

Promotion quotas are based on the number of programmed vacancies divided by the number of eligibles for that grade which gives a selection rate.  The selection rate is multiplied by the number of eligibles in each AFSC, which gives the number of selections in each AFSC.  There were seven eligibles in the 1A4X0 AFSC at the time selects were run on 29 October 2002, resulting in one promotion quota.  Air Staff policy guarantees that each promotion AFSC will receive at least one promotion quota.  There is no guarantee that a set number of stripes will be given to any AFSC.  To do so would run counter to the Congressionally imposed law restricting the top two enlisted grades to three percent of the force.  The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He feels the Air Force advisory has not addressed the issue of accountability to written Air Force Instructions (AFIs) mandating all eligible personnel be tested and made weighable for the given cycle.  His question was not answered as to why the major command (MAJCOM), the unit, the military personnel flight (MPF), the Testing Control Officer (TCO), or the Test and Evaluation Office did not do something to ensure the eighth eligible individual tested as directed by the AFIs.  The Air Force goal is to mirror as close as possible to 100% the weighable list to the eligible list.  What led to the 1A4X1 AFSC having seven eligibles instead of eight clearly should not have occurred.  

The Air Staff withholds a portion of promotion quotas in anticipation that a certain number of individuals were non-weighable at the time of the original selection for legitimate reasons such as medical, emergency leave or short-notice TDY requirements.  This was not the case of the eighth eligible candidate.  The eighth candidate was notified of his eligibility two months prior to his deployment date, which was plenty of time to do something regarding his promotion testing.  Since he was not able to test prior to his deployment or test at his deployment location, the unit had the obligation to ensure he was weighable and able to test by returning him early from his deployment or rescheduling his deployment to the following rotation. 

He is in a significantly different circumstance than the other 89 “number one” non-selects.  Clearly, the 1A4X1 AFSC should have had two promotion quotas.  The Air Force needs to look into this matter because the promotion to CMSgt is very prestigious.  The one person that no one ensured tested cost him a stripe and a position as a proud CMSgt in the United States Air Force.  The applicant’s review 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 probable error or injustice.  The applicant asserts he should be promoted because one individual in his AFSC who was eligible to test did not and if this member had tested, the applicant, as the number one nonselectee, would have been promoted.  Based on the evidence provided, we are not persuaded that the applicant is the victim of an error or an injustice.  Promotion quotas are based on the number of programmed vacancies divided by the number of eligibles for that grade resulting in the selection rate.  Based on the number of eligibles, it appears that the selection rate of one for the applicant’s AFSC was correctly calculated.  Air Force policy only guarantees that each promotion AFSC will receive at least one promotion and there is no guarantee that the applicant’s AFSC would have received a second promotion quota had all potentially eligible members been weighable.  We note that, according to the Air Force office or primary responsibility, there were 117 potentially eligible members who were considered nonweighable during the contested promotion cycle because their tests were not on file at the time original selections were made.  We believe it is safe to assume that the majority of these individuals were serving in specialties other than the applicant’s AFSC.  We have seen no evidence that would lead us to believe that the applicant was treated differently from other similarly situated members, i.e., number one nonselects in other specialties, or that his promotion score was incorrectly calculated.  Therefore, we agree with the assessment by the Air Force office of primary responsibility and find no basis on which to favorably consider 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 9 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01305 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Mar 03, with attachments.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 12 May 03.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.
	Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 23 Jun 03.