RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2021-02103

XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
	 
  	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

He receive retroactive promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant (E-9) for the CY2020 Chief Master Sergeant Promotion Cycle.  

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

He and others affected per the provided inspector general (IG) complaint should receive retroactive promotion to chief master sergeant.  During the CY2020 promotion cycle, the boarding process per AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Systems, was not followed.  Eligible members were not given a fair opportunity to compete with their peers for stratification.  The senior rater did not review all qualified records and all documents were not presented during the board process.  He would have had a 60 percent promotion opportunity with a stratification statement.  Without stratification, his promotion opportunity was only 4.4 percent. 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a currently serving Air Force senior master sergeant (E-8).  

The applicant provides a redacted DoD IG Hotline Completion Report.  Two complainants requested the DoD IG investigate the unit’s enlisted performance report (EPR) and stratification process. The IG determined there were some mistakes with the 2020 process and decoration narratives were not included in the packages for review by the panel.  This was identified after the panel convened on 4 Sep 20.  It was rectified with a full review on 16 Sep 20 by the same panel.  Panel members admitted there could have been a different outcome following the second review; however, the senior master sergeant who received the “#1” stratification was clearly the top performer.  No disciplinary actions were recommended.  To ensure the process was transparent and by the AFI, it recommended four procedural changes to be taken.  (NOT SUBSTANTIATED).  

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

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Systems, paragraph 4.11.5.4, panels are to “Review the last five evaluations, all awards and decorations, the current Air Force Fitness Management System tracker and Career Data Brief (CDB).”  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP2SPP recommends denial.  While there is evidence of an error or injustice during the stratification board proceedings, the issue was addressed by the IG.  The issue was quickly rectified by conducting a second panel and both panels drew the same conclusion.  Senior noncommissioned officer (SNCO) stratification boards are not governed by law and are not the sole determinant of promotion and as such bear significant differences from base to base and senior raters.  

The applicant was considered by a central evaluation board and was not selected for promotion.  While a stratification statement is normally tied to a higher promotion rate, it does not guarantee promotion.  For instance, on the 20E9 central evaluation board, 712 eligible for promotion (40 percent) with a stratification/endorsement, were not selected for promotion.  The applicant’s assertion that a stratification endorsement would have resulted in his selection for promotion to chief master sergeant is an overstatement.  

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 19 Oct 21 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was 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/DP2SPP and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  While the IG ROI provided by the applicant shows corrective actions were recommended to ensure a transparent process, the allegation the unit’s stratification process violated instructions was not substantiated.   Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, 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-2021-02103 in Executive Session on 23 Nov 21:

 , Panel Chair
 , Panel Member
 , Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 8 Apr 21.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, AFPC/DP2SPP, dated 6 Oct 21.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 19 Oct 21.

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.