RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01813
INDEX CODE: 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be allowed to retest for promotion to staff sergeant (E-5) in the
Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) for cycle 98E5, in the Air
Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of 3M050 (Services Craftsman).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was never issued current WAPS study materials in accordance with
AFI 36-2605.
In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal statement
and statements from her commander and first sergeant (Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular
Air Force on 24 June 1994. She has been progressively promoted to the
grade of senior airman (E-4), with an effective date and date of rank
of 24 June 1996. The following is a resume of her EPR ratings.
Period Ending Evaluation
23 Feb 96 4 - Ready for Promotion
2 Jan 97 3 - Consider for Promotion
24 Jun 97 5 - Ready for Immediate Promotion
24 Jun 98 4
The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of
Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Superintendent, Test Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPWE, stated that after
a review of the circumstances involved in the applicant’s situation,
they recommend her request be denied in the interest of fairness.
DPPPWE indicated that the records at the Extension Course Institute
show WAPS Career Development Courses (CDCs) were sent to the applicant
in September 1997. On 12 March 1998, the applicant signed for her
WAPS test date on an AF Form 1566 (Notification of WAPS Promotion
Testing) and acknowledged that she had personally reviewed the WAPS
Catalog to ensure she had current WAPS study reference material. At
that time, had she reviewed the WAPS Catalog, she would have realized
that the material she was studying was not the same as the material
needed for the 98E5 cycle and subsequently could have rescheduled her
test date to accommodate the required study time. It is unfortunate
to receive bad information from unit monitors, orderly room clerks,
etc., but the bottom-line is she did not fully meet her responsibility
concerning her promotion. AFI 36-2605 requires individuals to “Review
the annual WAPS Catalog to check availability and receipt of correct
study references.” DPPPWE stated that to provide relief in this case
would be unjust to other members with the same circumstances who have
been denied additional promotion consideration. A complete copy of
this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 12
October 1998 for review and response. 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. After reviewing the
circumstances of this case, we believe the applicant has been the
victim of an injustice. We are persuaded by the statements from the
applicant’s squadron commander and first sergeant that she (applicant)
was not given a fair opportunity to test competitively with her peers
for promotion to staff sergeant. In this respect, we note the
applicant was not properly briefed concerning testing in the Weighted
Airman Promotion System (WAPS). As a result, it appears the applicant
was unaware of her responsibility to check the WAPS Catalog to ensure
she had the correct study materials. In addition, we note that the
correct WAPS study materials were forwarded to the Services Division
Trainer Manager, however, the applicant never received the correct
study material. Having no basis to question the integrity of the
squadron commander and first sergeant, we do not believe the applicant
should suffer the consequences of factors over which she had no
control. In view of the foregoing, we recommend the applicant be
afforded supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of
staff sergeant for cycle 98E5.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be provided supplemental consideration for
promotion to the grade of staff sergeant for cycle 98E5 using the
Specialty Knowledge Test (SKT) score she received from the 99E5 cycle.
If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and
unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would
have rendered the applicant ineligible for the promotion, such
information will be documented and presented to the Board for a
final determination on the individual's qualifications for the
promotion.
If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the
records shall be corrected to show that she was promoted to the
higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental
promotion and that she is entitled to all pay, allowances, and
benefits of such grade as of that date.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 2 March 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Jun 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWE, dated 22 Sep 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 12 Oct 98.
BARBARA A. WESTGATE
Panel Chair
INDEX CODE: 131.00
AFBCMR 98-01813
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to , be provided supplemental consideration for
promotion to the grade of staff sergeant for cycle 98E5 using the
Specialty Knowledge Test (SKT) score she received from the 99E5 cycle.
If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or
subsequent to supplemental consideration that are separate and
apart, and unrelated to the issues involved in this application,
that would have rendered the applicant ineligible for the promotion,
such information will be documented and presented to the Board for a
final determination on the individual's qualifications for the
promotion.
If supplemental promotion consideration results in the
selection for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such
promotion the records shall be corrected to show that she was
promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the
supplemental promotion and that she is entitled to all pay,
allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. They The Superintendent, Military Testing Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWE, states that with regard to the promotion testing study time and receipt of study material, the time frames apply .in most cases and obviously don't apply in situations where the BCMR directs supplemental promotion consideration. 3 policy, the results of this test were use in his promotion consideration for the 95A7 cycle as well as the 94A7 and 93A7 cycles. 5 Mrs....
On 3 Nov 00, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend involuntary discharge from the Air Force for the commission of a serious offense (misconduct cited in the Article 15). On 5 Jul 00, the applicant appealed to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) for an honorable discharge and a different reason and authority for discharge. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, referred the appeal to...
When she was subsequently considered in the correct promotion AFSC, 8B000 (Military Training Instructor), she was not selected. According to the Air Force, had she been considered in the MTI career field, she still would not have been selected because her test score was too low. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03124
He was not given his Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) study material in a timely manner to prepare for his promotion test. The Promotion Eligibility Cut-Off Date (PECD) for promotion cycle 13E5 was 31 Mar 13. We took notice of the applicants 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 and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03655
His career suffered due to having to appeal for 352 days to get an enlisted performance report (EPR) removed from his records by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB). The applicant’s supplemental promotion score was 320.07. CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2006-03655 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation,...
The applicant was non-weighable (could not be considered because he did not test) for the 96E6 cycle (testing months January - March 1996). The applicant was provided supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to the grade of TSgt by cycle 96E6 using his test scores from the cycle 97E6 (testing months January - March 1997). The applicant was provided supplemental promotion consideration for the 96E6 cycle using his test scores from the 97E6 cycle.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). At the time she was placed on TDRL, promotion testing was being conducted for the 96E6 cycle. Although she is requesting supplemental promotion consideration to TSgt for the 97E6 cycle, she was ineligible for consideration because she was not on active duty.
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...
As an alternative, if the Board determines that the applicant has suffered an injustice, it could consider directing supplemental consideration using the applicant’s PFE score from the next cycle, 02E7 (testing 15 Feb -31 Mar 02), and applying it retroactively to the 01E7 cycle. While it does appear that the applicant was provided erroneous information regarding what he would be tested on, we do not believe it warrants direct promotion. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02950
In accordance with AFI 36-2604, “Service Dates and Dates of Rank,” and the DOR worksheet, his DOR should have been 15 Jun 01. The Enlisted Promotions Branch then supplementally considered him for promotion during cycle 03E6 using his scores from cycle 04E6 (cycle 03E6 scores became obsolete 1 Jan 04). In those situations where an individual becomes eligible for earlier promotion consideration, either through the AFBCMR process or, in the applicant’s case, a change to promotion data through...