RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04370 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His selection for promotion to Senior Master Sergeant (E-8) be restored. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. Even though he was erroneously allowed to test for promotion in his former 4A1X1 (Medical Material) Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), the removal of his promotion was unfair. He exercised due diligence in ensuring that he tested for promotion in the correct AFSC. Even though he had recently graduated the First Sergeant Academy (FSA) and was serving as a First Sergeant, he was repeatedly advised that his CAFSC, for the purposes of promotion consideration, should be 4A1X1 (Medical Material) instead of 8F000 (First Sergeant). Having been assured this was correct, he had no reason to question the accuracy of his CAFSC when he tested and was selected for promotion. This is consistent with the provisions of AFI 36-2113, The First Sergeant, which indicates the wear of the first sergeant device (diamond) is authorized upon graduation from the FSA while assigned to a valid 8F000 position. 2. This situation did not come to light as a result of the data verification check prescribed in AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/ Demotion Programs, but was the result of unfair scrutiny born from a complaint about his selection for promotion in his former AFSC. As a result of this complaint, it was discovered that he and seven other members of his FSA class were allowed to test for promotion in their former AFSCs. As the evidence indicates, he was notified of the removal of his promotion well after the ten days prescribed in the AFI for data verification checks. 3. While he was offered supplemental promotion consideration in his correct AFSC, it is unfair to compare his record, which reflects him being a First Sergeant for such a short time, against those of other First Sergeants who have been doing the job for some time. 4. Ultimately, this situation did not result from an error on his part and renders him the victim of an injustice. He questioned the effective date of his new CAFSC for testing purposes multiple times with experts from his losing and gaining units of assignment and was told each time that his CAFSC for the purpose of promotion consideration was correct. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) in the grade of master sergeant (E-7). On 11 Aug 11, Special Order AE-125325 was issued directing the applicant’s reassignment via permanent change of station (PCS) from Fairchild AFB, WA to Lakenheath, UK, with reporting not later than 30 Oct 11. This order reflects the applicant’s CAFSC as 8F000. On 11 Sep 11, the applicant departed his former duty station to attend the FSA from 12 Sep 11 through 30 Sep 11. On 11 Oct 11, the applicant arrived at Lakenheath, UK and commenced his assignment as a First Sergeant. On 7 Nov 11, the applicant signed AF IMT 1566, WAPS Test Verification, acknowledging he was scheduled to test on 5 Dec 11, in CAFSC 4A1X1 for promotion cycle 12E8. On 5 Dec 11, the applicant tested for promotion. On 14 Dec 11, an AF IMT 2096, Classification/On-the-Job Training Action, was initiated to award the applicant the 8F000 (First Sergeant) AFSC as his Primary AFSC, effective 11 Oct 11, for the purpose of initiating his special duty assignment pay (SDAP). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an injustice. The applicant and 40 other service members attended the FSA in Sep 11. Of the twenty-two attendees that were eligible for promotion consideration during the contested promotion cycle, eight members, including the applicant, were inadvertently considered in the wrong AFSC. As a result, the applicant and one other member were erroneously selected for promotion. Upon discovery of the error, the applicant’s erroneous promotion selection was removed and the eight members who were considered in the wrong AFSC were given supplemental promotion consideration in the 8F000 AFSC. Members compete for promotion in the CAFSC they hold at the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD). The PECD for the 12E8 cycle was 30 Sep 11. At the PECD, the weighted airman promotion systems (WAPS) reflected the applicant’s CAFSC as 4A1X1; however, it should have reflected 8F000 (First Sergeant). In accordance with AFI 36-2101, Classifying Military Personnel (Officer and Enlisted), the effective date of the CAFSC (for retraining through a formal school [including special duty]) is the date the member departed their current duty station PCS or permanent change of assignment (PCA). There are no provisions for an individual to retain a promotion to which they were erroneously selected. However, supplemental consideration is afforded to members whose records were in error during the Central Selection Board process. The applicant was therefore provided supplemental consideration in the correct AFSC and was rendered a non-select. This action is fair and consistent with how similarly situated members have been treated. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He checked with the experts on several occasions questioning the effective date of his CAFSC and was told each time his CAFSC for promotion consideration was accurately reflected as 4A1X1. He believed he was testing in the correct CAFSC. He was not notified of the error in testing in the wrong CAFSC as required under the governing instruction. He also believes his records could not fairly compete in the supplemental process against those who had served longer in First Sergeant’s career field. The applicant’s complete response 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. The applicant contends that the removal of his selection for promotion was an injustice and caused by the Air Force’s error in allowing him to be considered for promotion in the wrong career field, despite his repeated efforts to ensure he was appropriately considered in his former career field. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, the majority believes a preponderance of the evidence indicates the applicant is the victim of an injustice. In this respect, the majority notes that even though Air Force policy required the applicant’s control air force specialty code (CAFSC) to be changed prior to his departure for retraining, responsible officials at his losing unit failed to do so. As a result, his CAFSC was not changed until well after the promotion eligibility cut-off date, resulting in him being erroneously considered for promotion among his former peers. Therefore, in view of the fact the applicant’s predicament was the result of circumstances beyond his control, and the majority of the Board believes the applicant exercised due diligence in ensuring he was considered for promotion among the correct peer group, the majority believes that the removal of his selection for promotion constitutes an injustice that warrants corrective action. Therefore, in order to preclude an injustice to the applicant, we believe his records should be corrected as indicated below. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was promoted to the grade of Senior Master Sergeant (E-8), effective and with a date of rank of 1 Mar 13. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04370 in Executive Session on 4 Jun 13 and 18 Jul 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member ? By a majority vote, the Board voted to recommend granting the requested relief. voted to deny the application and has submitted a minority report, which is attached at Exhibit F. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Sep 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 24 Oct 12. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Nov 12. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Dec 12. Exhibit F. Minority Report, dated 27 Aug 13. Panel Chair DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC Office of the Assistant Secretary MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) SUBJECT: AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04370 I have carefully considered all the facts and circumstances of this case and the evidence of record. I do not agree with the recommendation of the majority of the Board to grant the applicant’s request to have his erroneous promotion selection to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) reinstated. The majority of the Board believes the applicant’s promotion selection should be reinstated because they concluded that he exercised due diligence in ensuring he was supposed to compete for promotion against his former peers, even though he had recently retrained into the First Sergeant career field. However, after reviewing the facts and circumstances of this case, I agree with the opinion and recommendation of the minority member of the Board. While the applicant argues that he went the extra mile to ensure he was supposed to compete for promotion in his former career field, other than his own assertions, he has provided no documentation to substantiate this point. Additionally, while the applicant’s situation is unfortunate, he has not presented any evidence to indicate that he has been treated differently than other similarly situated service members. Granting the applicant’s request would constitute an injustice to others who have been erroneously selected for promotion and had their promotion selections rightfully removed. Finally, approval of this request would certainly constitute an injustice to those 14 members of his First Sergeant class who were properly considered for promotion among their First Sergeant peers, but may have fared better if considered within their former career fields. Therefore, in accordance with the authority delegated by the Secretary in Headquarters Air Force Mission Directive 1-24, I hereby deny the applicant’s request that his erroneous promotion be reinstated. Please advise the applicant accordingly. Assistant Secretary (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) T