RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02631-2

XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

He be directly promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) for cycle 01E8.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

On 15 December 2004, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records [Board] directed he be given supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master sergeant.  However, in 2005, the supplemental promotion board informed him that he was Not Fully Qualified (NFQ) for promotion and indicated they did not have to provide a reason for their decision.  There is nothing in his record that would render him NFQ.  He recently re-read the Board directive, which states “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 qualification for promotion.”  This is a game changer.  The Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) did not comply with the Board’s original ruling in 2004.  The fact that the supplemental promotion board rendered him NFQ is an adverse factor that made him ineligible for promotion and should have been presented to the Board.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former Air Force master sergeant (E-7) who retired from the Regular Air Force on 1 February 2006.  He was credited with 26 years and 29 days of active service.

On 15 December 2004, the Board considered the applicant’s request for supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master sergeant in Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 8J000 (Correctional Custody).  The Board majority granted the applicant’s request finding there was sufficient evidence that he performed duties as the Superintendent of the Correctional Custody Facility in AFSC 8J000 from 1999-2001.  The Secretary of the Air Force designee directed the applicant be provided supplemental promotion consideration.

In a letter dated 19 May 2005, provided by the applicant, AFPC/DPPPW [Enlisted Promotions and Testing Branch], indicated the applicant was not NFQ for promotion.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY

Air Force Instruction 36-2502, Enlisted Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, Chapter 3 (Regular Air Force Senior Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation/Supplemental Board Procedures) requires that promotion boards be constructed with a board president (at least a brigadier general [O-7]) and at least one panel.  Panels will consist of one colonel (O-6) and two chief master sergeants (E-9) from the same career area.  All members of an AFSC or Chief Enlisted Manager code will be evaluated by the same three board members.  Board members, when assessing the airman’s record, may recommend to the board president the airman be rendered NFQ for promotion if, in their evaluation, they do not believe the airman has demonstrated the potential for advancement.  

Although a board member’s rationale for determining an eligible member to be NFQ is not releasable, he/she should be prepared to explain the logic behind the decision to the board president.  Those individuals, which a majority of the panel believes are NFQ, are identified as such in the board report and are not considered for promotion.  AFPC/PB [Promotion Board] provides a list of Airmen rendered NFQ by the board to AFPC/DPSOE [Enlisted Promotions and Military Testing Branch].  If the board determines an Airman is NFQ based on an evaluation of the record, the Airman is rendered ineligible for the promotion cycle.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP2SPP recommends denying the application.  Per the directive issued on 13 January 2005, by the Secretary of the Air Force designee, the applicant was provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master sergeant for cycle 01E8 during the May 2005 Senior Noncommissioned Officer Supplemental Board.  After reviewing the record, the board determined the applicant was NFQ for promotion.

Not Fully Qualified is an option available to enlisted evaluation board members to identify a record, which, in the board members’ opinions, is not qualified for promotion during the promotion board.  Subsequent discussion and voting by the entire panel determines the record’s NFQ status.  When a record is determined to be NFQ, the board president reviews the record for consistent scoring and if validated, the record is not considered for promotion.  The board is not required to disclose exact rationale for its findings.  Contributing factors can be as general as an overall noncompetitive record when compared to the member’s peers or as specific as demonstrated substandard performance and disciplinary problems.  Had the applicant been rendered “ineligible” for promotion consideration, his record would not have been reviewed by the promotion board.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 20 September 2018, for comment (Exhibit D) and the applicant replied on 27 September 2018.  In his response, the applicant reasserts that the Board previously directed his records be given supplemental promotion consideration in the 8J000 AFSC.  The directive also included language that required AFPC to present any adverse information to the Board that rendered him ineligible for promotion.  AFPC/DP2SPP’s position is that they complied with the Board’s directive by reviewing his records and rendering him NFQ for promotion.  Not Fully Qualified is the very definition of “ineligible for promotion.”  Therefore, AFPC was required to provide information to the Board for a final determination – which did not occur.  He was fully qualified when he tested in his previous AFSC and there is insufficient evidence to indicate he was NFQ for promotion in his new AFSC.  As such, he should be directly promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant.

In support of this response, the applicant provides copies of his Enlisted Performance Reports, awards and decorations, and letters of appreciation.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2SSP and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years of discovering the alleged error or injustice, as required by Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records.  While the applicant asserts a date of discovery within the three-year limit, the Board does not find the assertion supported by a preponderance of the evidence.  The Board does not find it in the interest of justice to waive the three-year filing requirement.  Therefore, the Board finds the application untimely and recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2004-02631-2 in Executive Session on 21 March 2019:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 27 August 2018.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSP, dated 18 September 2018. 
Exhibit D:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 20 September 2018.
Exhibit E:	Applicant’s response, w/atchs, dated 27 September 2018.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.