RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-02048 

 		COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) for cycle 15E8 in Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 8G000 – Honor Guard.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was the number one non-select to E8 for cycle 15E8 in 8G000 AFSC, due to his score being below the cutoff.  The only select of nineteen eligible personnel for AFSC 8G000 during cycle 15E8 later became a select for promotion under cycle 12E8, based on a correction to his records.  

He was the number one non-select and unfairly competed against the only one selected to promotion under AFSC 8G000; therefore, he should be reconsidered for promotion to E-8.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of master sergeant (E-7) during the matter under review.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP3SP recommends denial.  The applicant competed for promotion in the 8G000 AFSC, which received one promotion quota.  He was considered and non-selected for promotion to SMSgt during cycle 15E8.  

The member selected for promotion was subsequently selected for promotion to SMSgt during the July 2015 SNCO Supplemental Board, for a previous cycle based on a correction made to his record by the AFBCMR.  His supplemental selection was not made until after he competed for promotion during cycle 15E8 and rendered a valid select.  

Adjustments to selection status may be made after the fact only if it is determined that an individual who was selected was ineligible for promotion consideration at the time.  This normally occurs when personnel actions that render someone ineligible do not have time to process to the promotion file by the time selections are made.  Under these circumstances, adjustments may be made to promote the number one non-select when appropriate.  However, this is not the case here, as the select was eligible for promotion consideration during cycle 15E8.  

It is unfortunate for the applicant that the select for cycle 15E8 subsequently became a select for a previous cycle; however, many selects each year become selects for previous cycles after having corrections made to their records.  That does not change the fact that they were eligible for promotion consideration during the current cycle or that the correction to their record would guarantee selection during a previous cycle.  It would also not be feasible to go back to each and every cycle where someone became a select for a previous cycle, sometimes years later, and advance the number one non-select.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3SP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 20 March 2017 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

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 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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-02048 in Executive Session on 6 July 2017 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 April 2016, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 2 August 2016.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 March 2017.