RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02811 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be retired at the rank of Chief Master Sergeant (E-9). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Several months after she was promoted to E-9, she was demoted to Senior Master Sergeant (E-8) because she did not have a nine skill level. The Wing Commander and Command Chief were both told there was no method to promote a First Sergeant to E-9. This information turned out to be erroneous; there was a waiver process to promote to E-9 in the First Sergeant career field, a waiver package should have been submitted. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of Senior Master Sergeant (E-8) during the matter under review. On 1 May 11, according to the AF IMT 24, Recommendation and Authorization for Promotion of Airman as Reserve of the Air Force, the applicant was promoted to E-9. On 4 Aug 11, according to the AF IMT 973, Request and Authorization for Change of Administrative Orders, the promotion was revoked as if it never occurred and removed from the applicant’s permanent record. On 15 Jun 12, the applicant retired from the United States Air Force Reserve in the grade of Senior Master Sergeant (E-8). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibit C, D and G. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1K recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Air Force Reserve enlisted members are promoted under the authority of AFPD 36-25. Promotion requirements to CMSgt requires a Primary Air Force Specialty Code (PAFSC) of a 9-skill level, as well as the member must have 24 months’ time in grade (TIG), be a satisfactory participant in accordance with AFI 36-2254V1, along with being recommended for promotion by their supervisor and approved for promotion by the promotion authority. In accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 8.2., Note 2, the Promotion Authority may waive the PAFSC skill level requirement for Airmen performing in a Special Duty Identifier (SDI), for example: SDI 8R000 Recruiter. On reassignment from duty in SDI, Airman must qualify for the skill level required in Column B, within the time limits specified in AFI 36-2201, Volume 3. The applicant would not have been able to keep the rank of CMSgt with a waiver, as there is not a waiver that pertains to the applicant’s case. There is no waiver available to allow any member to be promoted to the rank of CMSgt without a 9-skill level in their PAFSC. There is a waiver process for members being promoted in a special duty identifier where skill levels do not apply; however that is not the case here. On 1 May 11, the member was erroneously promoted to CMSgt in the “2T2” career field. The servicing Military Personnel Squadron (MPS) discovered she was ineligible and the member’s commander submitted a promotion revocation to the Command which was approved. The applicant was not demoted, a revocation was processed which applies to members who were promoted, but later found to be ineligible for promotion as in the applicant’s case. An administrative error occurred allowing the applicant to be promoted, however, that is not a basis for allowing the member to keep the promotion when it was later determined she was not eligible for promotion. Complete copies of the AFRC/A1K evaluations are at Exhibits C, D and G. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant agrees with the facts as they are written. In addition, she provides the following details. The applicant’s Wing Commander asked for a resolution for the promotion to remain in place. The commander was told that since the applicant was a ten year First Sergeant who did not hold a 9- skill level she could not remain a CMSgt and that there was not a method for First Sergeants to be promoted to CMSgt. The applicant’s Command Chief was told the same thing. At a later date the applicant’s Command Chief learned that there is a waiver process for members in the position of a special duty (SDI) to apply and potentially obtain a waiver for the 9-skill level and be promoted to CMSgt. The applicant feels she was unfairly demoted since she did not have the opportunity to submit a waiver package. A complete copy of the rebuttal is at Exhibit F. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s MILPDS record was reviewed and noted as follows: 16 Jan 03, member last held AFSC 2A671; 17 Jan 03, member was selected into a SDI 8F000 (First Sergeant); 1 Mar 11, member retrained into 2T2X0 career field. In accordance with AFI 36-2101, Para 4.1.2.2 Enlisted Downgrade and Table 4.1 Downgrading AFSC’s for Lack of Recent Performance, member’s 2A671 AFSC was downgraded after six years due to lack of performance and then withdrawn after two additional years of nonperformance (para 4.1.2.3 Enlisted-Withdraw) when using Table 4.1. Member was out of the 2A6X1 career field for a total of 8 years and 11 days. Furthermore, member did not attend the required technical training and complete the career development course in the 294 days she was in the 2T2X0 career field to achieve the 9-skill level. The applicant did not hold a 9-skill level in any AFSC; therefore, she cannot retain one. A complete copy of the AFRC/A1K additional evaluation is at Exhibit G. APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: As of this date, no response has been received by this office. (Exhibit H). 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-2014-02811 in Executive Session on 14 May 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-02811 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Jul 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFRC/A1K, dated 10 Sep 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFRC/A1K, dated 30 Oct 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Jan 15. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated, 27 Jan 15. Exhibit G. Memorandum, AFRC/A1K, dated 1 Apr 15. Exhibit H. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 15.