RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02328
INDEX CODE: 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the rank of staff sergeant (E-5) with all back pay and
benefits.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was denied a promotion that he rightly earned due to circumstances
and errors beyond his control.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement,
and documentation pertaining to his reenlistment ineligibility and
Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) promotion testing.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant’s military personnel records reflects that the applicant, a
former United States Air Force Academy cadet, was ordered to extended
active duty on 1 Jun 94.
A Memorandum for the Chief of Staff, dated 25 Jun 96, indicates that
the applicant’s records was corrected to reflect that he was called to
active on 30 Jun 93, rather 1 Jun 94, and that his active duty service
commitment was fulfilled on 29 Jun 96, rather than 31 May 97.
Applicant was honorably discharged on 31 Jul 96 under the provisions
of AFI 36-3208 (Completion of Required Active Service). He was
credited with 3 years, 1 month, and 2 days of active duty service.
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 Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB,
reviewed this application and recommended denial. DPPPWB noted that
the applicant was initially ordered to extended active duty (EAD)
involuntarily, on 1 Jun 94 for a period of three years. AFBCMR
Memorandum 95-02244, dated 25 Jun 96, corrected the record to show he
was ordered to EAD 30 Jun 93, vice 1 Jun 94. The applicant
erroneously tested for promotion to staff sergeant for the 95E5 cycle
on 8 May 95. After he had tested, it was determined that he was
ineligible because he did not have the required Primary Air Force
Specialty Code (PAFSC) at the "5" Skill Level as required by AFI 36-
2502, Table 2.1, Rule 2, Column B. The applicant was selected for
promotion to staff sergeant the next cycle, 96E5, but was discharged,
on 31 Jul 96, before his promotion would have been effective on 1 Mar
97. He was discharged on 31 Jul 96 upon completion of required
service.
DPPPWB indicated that the applicant entered EAD on 1 Jun 94 in AFSC
2T111. He was upgraded to the “3” Skill Level (AFSC 2T131) on 28 Jul
95 and was upgraded to the “5” Skill Level (AFSC 2T151) on 1 Feb 96.
In order to be eligible for promotion for the 95E5 cycle, he must have
held a “5" Skill Level AFSC by 31 Mar 95 which was the Promotion
Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for this cycle. Again, he was not
upgraded to the required skill level until 1 Feb 96, which was 10
months after the required date. The applicant was ineligible for a
Primary AFSC Skill Level Waiver by his commander because there was no
interruption in his training.
DPPPWB noted that, although the applicant was ineligible and was
erroneously tested, his Promotion Fitness Examination (PFE) score was
70.65 and his Specialty Knowledge Test (SKT) score was 84.00.
According to DPPPWB, if he had been eligible for promotion, his total
score would have been 326.31 and the cutoff score required for
selection in his AFSC was 294.85. He would have received Promotion
Sequence Number (PSN) 9266.9, which would have been effective 1 Jun
96.
A complete copy of the DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 28
Sep 98 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable 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 and adopt their rationale as the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of
an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence that the
applicant met the eligibility criteria for promotion to the grade of
staff sergeant during the 95E5 cycle, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice;
that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and
that 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 this application in
Executive Session on 1 Jun 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Jul 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 14 Sep 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 28 Sep 98.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C. The Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated promotion ineligibility, because of weight, is the same as all other ineligibility conditions outlined in AFI 36-2502. DPPPWB stated the applicant tested 21 Feb 97 for promotion cycle 97E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98) and the PECD for this cycle was 31 Dec 96. Pursuant to the Board’s request, DPPPWB provided an unofficial copy...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application and indicated that although no documentation has been provided showing the reason for the delay in awarding the AAM, 2OLC, and no copy of the recommendation package was provided, the decoration was processed and awarded within the time limits required. Current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36-2502, Table 2.2, Rule 5, Note 2)...
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 | CY1999 | BC-1998-01133
Applicant was considered for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), and selected, by the 92A6 promotion cycle with a date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 October 1991. Subsequent to the applicant’s retirement from the Air Force on 1 January 1996, he was awarded the Defense Meritorious Service Medal (DMSM) for the period 2 March 1986 to 31 December 1990, for meritorious service, per Permanent Orders 310-01, dated 6 November 1997. As stated by AFPC/DPPPWB, had the Defense...
Applicant was considered for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), and selected, by the 92A6 promotion cycle with a date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 October 1991. Subsequent to the applicant’s retirement from the Air Force on 1 January 1996, he was awarded the Defense Meritorious Service Medal (DMSM) for the period 2 March 1986 to 31 December 1990, for meritorious service, per Permanent Orders 310-01, dated 6 November 1997. As stated by AFPC/DPPPWB, had the Defense...
This 2 AFBCMR 97-0 1546 policy was initiated on 28 Feb 79 specifically to preclude personnel from subsequently (after promotion selections) submitting someone for a decoration with a retroactive decoration effective date (close out) so as to put them over the selection cutoff score. Had the recommendation not been misplaced, we believe the RDP would have been requested in sufficient time for the award to be credited for promotion consideration during cycle 96E5. While we note the applicant...
His corrected record receive supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) for cycle 97E7. He is asking the Board to correct the injustice that was done on his last duty station. Per message, dated 29 Sep 97, officials at the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC), Promotion Management Section, AFB, , informed the applicant that the documentation provided did not clearly establish that a decoration recommendation was placed into official channels prior to the date...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-03417
His corrected record receive supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) for cycle 97E7. Per message, dated 29 Sep 97, officials at the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC), Promotion Management Section, Randolph AFB, Texas, informed the applicant that the documentation provided did not clearly establish that a decoration recommendation was placed into official channels prior to the date promotion selections were made and disapproved applicant’s request for...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that the contested report would normally have been eligible for promotion consideration for the 96E7 cycle to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 96 - Jul 97). Consequently, he was ineligible for promotion consideration for the 96B7 cycle based on both the referral EPR and the PES Code “Q”. Even if the board directs removal of the referral report, the applicant would not...
His corrected record receive supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) for cycle 97E7. He is asking the Board to correct the injustice that was done on his last duty station. Per message, dated 29 Sep 97, officials at the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC), Promotion Management Section, Randolph AFB, Texas, informed the applicant that the documentation provided did not clearly establish that a decoration recommendation was placed into official channels prior...