RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05819 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her current Date of Rank (DOR) be changed to reflect that she was promoted during cycle 09E5 rather than Cycle 10E5. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Due to an error in her military records, she was overlooked for the 09E5 promotion testing cycle. Her records show that she was erroneously classified as a 9A100 Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) after being removed from her 1C1X1 career field for fear of controlling. This caused her retraining packet to get denied and she was moved to a 9A300 AFSC without her acknowledgement. Her paperwork did not get fixed until 16 Sep 09 when she was reclassified as a 9A000. This action corrected her DOR to the grade of senior airman to 9 Oct 08. She attempted to get her testing study material; however, she was denied because she was ineligible to test. On 2 Feb 10, AFPC granted her approval to test contingent upon a memorandum from her commander. The memorandum was signed on 16 Feb 10; however, she was still denied study material due to non-availability. On 3 Mar 10, she signed for the 09E5 testing date and had to test on 11 Mar 10 due to a mandatory temporary duty assignment. She states that the governing Air Force instruction states that she must be given access to reference materials at least 60 days before her test date. Had she been allotted the 60 days of study time she would have tested in the 10E5 cycle. She cannot be administered an obsolete test so the test results from her 10E5 test should have been back dated to the 09E5 cycle which would have made her an E5 a year earlier. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of AF Forms 2096 (AFSC changes), email correspondence and discussion threads of her status during the testing cycle. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a staff sergeant with an effective date and DOR of 1 Feb 11. The Promotion Eligibility Cut-Off Date (PECD) for cycle 09E5 was 31 Mar 09. On 16 Sep 09, the applicant’s AFSC was changed to reflect 9A000 (disqualified not for cause). She was subsequently tested (Promotion Fitness Examination (PFE) only) and considered against all other retrainees (00XXX). Her total score was 230.60 and the score required for selection was 267.98. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommended denial of the applicant's request to have her cycle 10E5 test score used in the promotion process for cycle 09E5. The applicant was considered PFE only and had access to study reference material regardless of her eligibility condition, rank or AFSC. As a matter of information, the applicant was selected for promotion to SSgt during cycle 10E5. Airmen are considered for promotion in the AFSC they hold at the time of the PECD. The PECD for cycle 09E5 was 31 Mar 09. As of that date, the applicant's AFSC was reflected in the system as 9A100 (ineligible). AFPC/DPSIC has determined that they did not approve her disqualification from AFSC 1C1X1 until 16 Sep 09 and her AFSC was updated to reflect 9A000 (disqualified not for cause and awaiting retraining). Since she was not officially disqualified from her previous AFSC (1ClX1) unti1 16 Sep 09, the 9A100 update should be deemed erroneous and the applicant should have been considered for promotion during cycle 09E5 in the 1C1Xl AFSC. Since both career fields (1C1X1 and OOXXX) test PFE only, her total weighted score (230.60) was compared to the cutoff for AFSC 1C1X1 for cycle 09E5 (268.23). The applicant remains a nonselect. The applicant claims that she was not given enough time to prepare for promotion testing and was forced to test with just 8 days notice. The applicant signed an AF IMT 1566, Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) Test Verification on 3 Mar 10, acknowledging her test date of 11 Mar 10. AFI 36- 2505, Air Force Military Personnel Testing System, states "Do not delay testing to give additional study time unless members did not have access to study reference materials at least 60 days prior to test date." In the applicant's case she was testing PFE only. The PFE measures the airman's broad knowledge of the military and all eligible take the same PFE regardless of rank and AFSC. Furthermore, all individuals receive a hard copy of the PFE whether they are eligible to test or not. The PDF format version is available through the web as well. In addition, AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, para 1.19 lists several individual responsibilities with regard to testing. It lists as an individual responsibility the requirement to receive at least 60 days access to study materials prior to testing. It goes on to say that when a person signs the WAPS Test Verification (AF IMT 1566) he or she is waiving the right to the 60 days even if he or she does not have the materials 60 days prior to the test date. It further states that the member is waiving the right to the 60 days if they have not initiated follow-up action to obtain study material in a timely manner (at least 60 days before start of testing cycle). All members are expected to be prepared to test the first day of the testing cycle. A complete DPSOE 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 1 Mar 13 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, the Air Force office of primary responsibility has provided an exhaustive review of the applicant’s issues and we are in agreement with the rationale expressed that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2012-05819 in Executive Session on 17 Sep 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Dec 12. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 8 Feb 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Mar 13. Panel Chair