AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 97-03594 443 1 4 19@
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that he be allowed to retain his line number
for technical sergeant (E-6) for the 9736 promotion cycle.
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 Ms. Martha Maust, Mr. Richard A. Peterson and
Mr.. Patrick R. Wheeler considered this application 4 August 1998
in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603
and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
MhRTHA MAUSq
Panel Chair
Exhibits :
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
'37 L Z ~ ~ ' ~ .
i
vi7 G ? L ~ A , ~ -
'
-1
- ~ : ~
A
>' _- A - A A L - -i -,- -
c
b. One key aspect o f the “selection for promotion” notification procedures is that
commanders are permitted to announce selections to individuals concerned as “tentative” prior to
the MPF officials completing the detailed data vefication process (promotion data is not
verified by the MPF on nonselectees). The 97E6 cycle, the cycle in question, was no exception.
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. When an error is detected,
appropriate action of course, must be taken in order to maintain the credibility of the WAPS.
More specifically, if a member is selected based on erroneous information and when
reconsidered the total score falls below that required for selection, the member’s name is
removed from the selection list. Conversely, if it i s determined that an individual should have
been promoted but was not, appropriate action is taken to promote the member.
c. Approximately six months before selections are made for each cycle, each eligible is
provided a Data Verification Record (DVR). The purpose of the DVR is to let each eligible
know what data will be used in hidher promotion consideration. Performance Report ratings and
closing dates, as well as decorations and other data, are depicted, as they are an integral part of
the promotion process. This computer produced product contains specific instructions which
tells each member to review each factor for accuracy as it is critical to promotion consideration
and if an error is detected, it should be brought to the attention of personnel in the servicing MPF
for correction or resolution. This critical part of the promotion process is the responsibility of the
member being considered. The EPR closing 15 J u 94 with the incorrect overall evaluation was
used in the applicant’s promotion consideration for three promotion cycles, 95E6,96E6, and
97B6. The applicant had an opportunity to advise the MPF the rating was incorrect. He did not
do this and the result was that he was considered with erroneous data. He was tentatively
identified as a selectee and subsequently his selection was negated because he did not have the
required amount of points to meet the score required for selection when he was reconsidered with
the correct infomation.
d. Beginning in 1980 the public release of promotion selectees changed to a “quick
release”. The individual still receives a preselection DVR and is responsible for accuracy of
promotion data. When an error is detected by the member and brought to the attention of the
servicing MPF for correction, a new DVR is provided to the member showing the corrected data.
The importance of promotion data accuracy is continually stressed throughout the cycle.
However, data on tentative selectees is now verified by officials in the servicing MPF after
public release. If an error is found, the individual and commander are notified the tentative
selection may be in jeopardy. The selection status is confirmed within seven days after receipt of
the Score Notice. This process has eliminated leaks of promotion lists so that commanders and
the member concerned are not now the last to know of selections, a c o m o n public release date
is established and all eligibles learn of their promotion status at the same time. The percent of
valid selections has remained at 99.8 to 99.9.
9703594
- . . . . . . . . . . .
e. In summary, if the AFBCMR were to promote the applicant it would be authorizing a
promotion for an individual who would not have been selected during cycle 97E6 had his EPR
rating been updated properly. Consequently, there is no valid reason to promote the applicant to
TSgt, a grade that he was never legally selected. To do so would be grossly &air
to the many
other individuals in the applicant’s AFSC who have a higher total score than him but cannot be
promoted because their total score is also below the cutoff score of 338.33 required for selection.
Recommendation. Denial, based on the rationale provided.
t
TON%? R. MERRITT
Chief, InquiriedAFBCMR Section
Enlisted Promotion & Mil Testing Br
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.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) . Current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36-2502, Table 2.2, Rule 5 , Note 2) dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close out date of the decoration must be on or before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD), and the date of the DECOR-6, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP) must be...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 97E6 to technical sergeant (E-6), promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98. It is noted that the applicant will become a selectee for promotion during this cycle if the Board grants his request, pending a favorable data verification check and the recommendation of...
For a decoration to be eligible for consideration in a promotion cycle, the close-out date of the decoration must be on or before the PECD, and the date of the RDP must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 26 July 1999, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. After reviewing...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-02525
The applicant states that an individual in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was promoted to the grade of technical sergeant during cycle 97E6 with a lower total promotion score than he had scored. However, we note that unlike the applicant, the referenced individual was initially considered in AFSC 2A3X2B and was the only one in the AFSC who was initially selected for promotion with a total score of 326.04. Although the applicant contends he too should be promoted since his score was...
The applicant states that an individual in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was promoted to the grade of technical sergeant during cycle 97E6 with a lower total promotion score than he had scored. However, we note that unlike the applicant, the referenced individual was initially considered in AFSC 2A3X2B and was the only one in the AFSC who was initially selected for promotion with a total score of 326.04. Although the applicant contends he too should be promoted since his score was...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02683
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 assume the grade when data verification discovers missing or erroneous data.” Therefore, if an IDMT serving...