RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-02193
		INDEX CODE:  136.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the grade of chief master sergeant (CMSgt).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His ability to receive fair consideration for promotion was eliminated during the 2006 and 2007 promotion cycles due to inaction by his chain of command.  During the 2006 promotion cycle his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) was due 30 June 2006.  The promotion board met in November 2006 and his EPR was not completed until December 2006.  For the 2007 promotion cycle he did not receive an EPR which made him ineligible for promotion.  Despite having received notification by the promotion authority that he required a report his rating chain took no action to satisfy the requirement.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of his EPR closing 30 June 2006 and copies of email communiqué.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

After serving 28 years and 26 days on active duty, the applicant retired from the Air Force on 1 April 2008 in the grade of senior master sergeant.  He served as a Traffic Management Superintendent.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP defers the decision for promotion to CMSgt/E9 to HQ AFPC/DPSOE, Enlisted Promotions, and recommends the AFBCMR direct the following actions in regards to the 2006 and 2007 EPRs:  The 30 June 2006 EPR – change the signature dates of the additional rater to reflect 30 June 2006.  The 30 June 2007 EPR – direct the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) to have an EPR accomplished.  Additionally, direct that the dates signed by the rater, additional rater and reviewer, if applicable, reflect 30 June 2007.

DPSIDEP states the application was submitted in a timely manner.  Since the applicant has retired, he is ineligible to file an appeal through the ERAB under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 20 February 2004; and did not file an appeal prior to retirement.

IAW AFI 36-2406, based on the applicant’s service dates and the close-out dates of the applicable EPRs, he was eligible for promotion testing in 2006 and 2007; therefore, EPRs were required in both 2006 and 2007.  Furthermore, AFI 36-2406 requires evaluations to be placed in the SNCO Selection Record no later than 60 days after the close-out date of the report.  The applicant’s 2006 EPR should have been placed in his selection folder not later than 30 August 2006, and the 2007 report should have been placed in his selection folder not later than 30 August 2007.

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOE defers to the recommendation of AFPC/DPSIDEP regarding the accomplishment of the 2007 EPR and correction of the 30 June 2006 report.  Should the Board choose to correct the record per DPSIDEP’s recommendation, they could direct the applicant be supplementally considered for promotion to CMSgt for cycle 06E9 and 07E9 during the next SNCO Supplemental Board (July 2009).  As a matter of information, if the applicant’s appeal is approved, he would incur a three year ADSC from the date of his pin-on, should he become a select.  He would either have to be directed back to active duty to fulfill his service commitment or request the Board waive the three year ADSC.

DPSOE states that since the applicant had a weighable report (close out date between 1 August 2005 – 31 July 2006) on file at the time the Board met, he was considered, but not selected, for promotion to CMSgt during cycle 06E9.  Once the 30 June 2006 report was updated, he was ran through the in-system supplemental process; however, he was never supplementally considered through the board process as he never requested supplemental consideration.  The weighted airman promotion system was not looking for another report on the applicant for cycle 06E9 since he had a weighable report on file and met the initial selection board.

The applicant contends that he was ineligible for promotion consideration to CMSgt during cycle 07E9 because a report was never accomplished; however, that was not the case.  He tested 13 September 2007; however, his test was not scored and his record did not meet the board due to his nonweighable status.  He was honorably retired 1 April 2008 in the grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt).

In order to compete for promotion, you have to be eligible and your record must be weighable.  A weighable record means all the weighted factor data elements (EPRs, Decorations, USAFSE score, TIG and TIS) are present and you will receive promotion consideration during the original select run/board process.  A nonweighable record means one or more weighted factors are missing from your promotion file.  All SMSgts eligible for CMSgt during cycle 07E9 were required to have an EPR closing out between 1 August 2006 and 31 July 2007.  Eligibles cannot receive promotion consideration until their record becomes weighable.  If, after the initial board process a nonweighable record becomes weighable, the member receives promotion consideration during the next scheduled supplemental board.

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 29 August 2008, copies of the evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting corrective action.  While we are not persuaded by the applicant's assertions that direct promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant is appropriate in this case, we do believe a measure of relief is warranted.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, it appears that through no fault of his own, the contested report closing 30 June 2006 was not properly processed in time for consideration during promotion cycle 06E9.  As indicated by the office of primary responsibility, the 30 June 2006 EPR should have been placed in his selection folder not later than 30 August 2006, prior to the convening of the November 2006 selection board.  Therefore, it is our opinion that his record should be corrected as indicated below.

Notwithstanding the above, we are not persuaded by the evidence presented that corrective action is warranted with regard to his consideration for promotion during cycle 07E9.  In this respect, we note that the applicant had applied and received an approved retirement to be effective 1 April 2008.  It appears that it was his rater's assumption that since he had an approved retirement, completion of a 2007 EPR was optional.  However, even though the rater was informed that a report was still required because the projected effective date of his retirement was after 1 January 2008, it appears a report was not accomplished.  We note the opinions of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility recommending that an EPR be directed; however, taking into consideration that it is each individual's responsibility to ensure the accuracy of his or her selection record prior to the convening of the selection board we find no evidence of such due diligence on the applicant's part.  In this respect, the applicant has not provided evidence showing what follow-up actions, if any, he took prior to the convening of the cycle 07E9 board to ensure the EPR in question was accomplished and that his selection record was complete and up-to-date.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we recommend his records be corrected only to the extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the AF Form 911, Senior Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt through CMSgt), rendered for the period 1 September 2005 through 30 June 2006, be amended in Section VI, Additional Rater's Comments, by changing the signature date to read 30 June 2006, rather than 8 December 2006.

It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant (E-9) for the O6E9 cycle.

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 qualifications for the promotion.

If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion, the records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 23 October 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-02193 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 June 2008, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 25 July 2008.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 25 July 2008, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 August 2008.

	

				Chair

AFBCMR BC-2008-02193

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Senior Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt through CMSgt), AF Form 911, rendered for the period 1 September 2005 through 30 June 2006, be amended in Section VI, Additional Rater's Comments, by changing the signature date to read 30 June 2006 rather than 8 December 2006.

It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant (E-9) for the O6E9 cycle.

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 qualifications for the promotion.

If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion, the records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.

	
	Director
	Air Force Review Boards Agency