AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 97-03274
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: NO
A m 1 4 1998
Applicant requests he be retroactively promoted to the grade of
staff sergeant. Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and
provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the
application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D).
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
After careful consideration of applicant's request and the
available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of
error or injustice to warrant corrective action. The facts and
opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the
evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which
entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or
appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to
disturb the existing record.
Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and
will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant
evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the
application was filed.
Members of the Board Mr. Leroy T. Baseman, Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff
and Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler considered this application on 2 July
1998 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction
3 6 - 2 6 0 3 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
LEROY T. BASEMAN
Panel Chair
Exhibits :
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C . Advisory Opinion
D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
&
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER
RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: AFPC/DPPPWB
550 C Street West, Ste 09
Randolph AFB TX 78150-4711
'10 Pjov I997
1-947 - 1 9 0 7
1
I
I
!
i t I
!
SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Records
Requested Action. The applicant is requesting he be promoted to 3tzfTsergeant (E-5) during
cycle 9'7335 (promotions effmtive Sep 97 - Aug 98).
Reason for Request. The applicant who was tentatively selected for promotion to staff' sergeant,
during cycle 97E5 and later lost the promotion because of a data error that was not his fault,
believes his promotion to staff sergeant should be reinstat&.
Facts. - The applicant was tentatively selected for promotion to staff sergeant during the initial i
97E5 promotion cycle per Promotion Sequence Number (PSN) 03089.0. The tentative
promotion was canceled when it was determined during the data verification check, that his
records had been erroneously updated to reflect the award of an Aerial Achievement Medal
(worth 3 points).
j
!
I
i
I
I I
I
I
I
Discussion.
I I
I
a fkvorable data v d i d o n check.
a. A review of the applicant's case file reflects that he was tentatively selected for
1
promotion to staff sergeant during cycle 97E5 pen-
However, it was discovered during the data verification check that his total decoration points had
been updated to include the award of an Aerial Achievement Medal which he had never been
'
awarded. This erroneous update was done by bis servicing Military Personnel Flight (MPF).
'
Once this mor was corrected, the applicant's total promotion score dropped below the cutoff i
required for promotion in his Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) and he became a
!
nonselect for promotion. W e the applicant believes his promotion should be reinstated
because the mor which caused his nonselectim was no fault of his, the fact remains that had he
been considered with the correct decoration points he would never have been selected for
promotion during the 9735 cycle.
I
b. The applicant has included an article fkom the Air Force Times regarding the removal;
fiom the. selection list of seven other individuals. Without addressing specifics because of the i
P r i v ~ y Act of 1974, these individuals were either considered in the incorrect Promotion AFSC
initially, or if considered in the correct AFSC, when other individuals (who were initially
:
I
...
.
c
P
.
considered in the incorrect AFSC) were reconsidered in their AFSC, they became nonselectees !
because of a change in the cutoff score required for selection. They also petitioned the
AFBCMR. However, their removal fiom the selection list was because they were built and
;
considered in eleven AFSCs when they should have been considered in only four. Their
I j
particular situation is not the same as the applicant's as he was selected for promotion based on:
the award of an erroneous decoration.
+
I
e
to the individuals record and hehhe
c. Personnel are informed when promotions are first announced +ey are tentative pen&g
i
a data verification (a comparison of the computer data with the paper copies of the source
documents in the records). When an emr is detected during the data verification process,
regardless of what caused the error, the correction is d
reconsidered for promotion. Iftheir total score remains above the cutoff score required for
promotioq they remain a select. If the score drops below the cutoff score required for promoti
they become a nonselect. This is what happened in the case of the applicant. Therefore, if the
AErlBCMR were to promote the applicant it would be authofizing a promotion for an individual
who wodd not have been selected during cycle 97E5 had his decoration points .been updated
properly. Consequently, there is no valid reasoa to promote the applicant to s M sergeant, a
grade that he was never legally selected. To do so would be grossly unfair to the 112 other
individuals in the applicant's AFSC who have a higher total score than his but cannot be
promoted because their total score is also below the cutoff score of 288.75 required for selectio
Recommendation. Denial, based on the rationale provided.
I
I
s
n
L.
! '
IO,_arkme
DONALD €3. SLATE
Ass't Chief, InquiriedAFBCMR Section
Enlisted Promotion Branch
. _
.
-
.
. .
,
i
!
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been adequately rebutted by applicant. The applicant is requesting reinstatement of his tentative selection to CMSgt for the 97E9 promotion cycle.
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-01869
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After formal selection and official announcement by the Air Force of his promotion to MSgt, his Center Commander informed him of a discrepancy which reverses his promotion selection. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After formal selection and official announcement by the Air Force of his promotion to MSgt, his Center Commander informed him of a discrepancy which reverses his promotion selection. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03804
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 2 Sep 11, while deployed in Afghanistan, he looked at his promotion data in the vMPF and noticed his promotion information changed and his official score was above the cutoff. He believes receiving a new score notice in the vMPF constitutes his promotion notification and requests the Board honor this notification of promotion. _________________________________________________________________ THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02799
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advised that the applicant was erroneously considered, tested, and selected for promotion to MSgt during cycle 05E7 in AFSC 2T1X1. Based on the 14 Dec 04 promotion testing notification, and data listed in the MilPDS and the WAPS, the applicant was erroneously considered, tested, and selected for promotion in his 2T AFSC to MSgt during cycle 05E7. We therefore recommend he be provided...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The Hq AFPC/DPPP NG; Release Message instructed MPFs to remind commanders to advise those individuals identified as selectees their selection is tentative mtil the data verification process is completed and the member’s Score Notice is received. More specifically, if a member is selected based on erroneous information and...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00338
According to a letter provided by the applicant, the WAPS Testing Control Officer believed the applicant would test for promotion to the grade of TSgt in his old AFSC of 2A651B due to the system showing a date initially entered retraining (DIERT) of 9 Jan 04, which was after the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD) of 31 Dec 03. We further note that the Air Force’s scoring his test against the wrong shred of the correct AFSC and erroneously notifying him that he had been selected for...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02361
Only those individuals assigned to an IDMT 4N0X1C CAFSC position at the time of the conversion were considered for promotion as an IDMT in the CY05 cycle. Complete copies of the applicant’s responses, with attachments, are at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advised that prior to the start of the promotion cycle, CFMs are advised that if they feel it is appropriate for the suffix and “slick” AFSCs...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02310
Not every IDMT-qualified member was identified, mostly because they were not in an IDMT position. Only those individuals assigned to an IDMT 4N0X1C CAFSC position at the time of the conversion were considered for promotion as an IDMT in the CY05 cycle. As to whether some individuals were incorrectly promoted because they were “lucky” enough to be identified in the wrong CAFSC, promotion selections are “tentative pending verification by the MPF” (AFI 36-2502) and airmen are not “to...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03823
Not every IDMT-qualified member was identified, mostly because they were not in an IDMT position. Only those individuals assigned to an IDMT 4N0X1C CAFSC position at the time of the conversion were considered for promotion as an IDMT in the CY05 cycle. As to whether some individuals were incorrectly promoted because they were “lucky” enough to be identified in the wrong CAFSC, promotion selections are “tentative pending verification by the MPF” (AFI 36-2502) and airmen are not “to...