RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00702
INDEX CODE: 136.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-6) as if
selected by the 98E6 cycle.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His record is in error due to the number of court-martials and disciplinary
actions taken involving the Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) test
for cycle 98E6 for the Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) “3P0X1” (Security
Police). He states that although another individual who competed with him
for promotion was acquitted of cheating on his Promotion Fitness
Examination (PFE), the Air Force believes that under a preponderance of
evidence standard, there is sufficient evidence to show the other
individual cheated.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of
staff sergeant (E-5).
The applicant was considered for promotion by the 98E6 promotion cycle to
TSgt (promotions effective August 1998 - July 1999) and was not selected.
On 20 May 1998, promotions were made in the “3P0X1” AFSC. There were 542
selectees and the applicant’s position was number two of 2416 nonselects
based on total score.
The applicant’s total score was 363.76, and the score required for
selection in his AFSC was 363.80, a difference of .04 point.
The applicant was considered and selected for promotion to the grade of
TSgt by the 00E6 promotion cycle. His line number has not been incremented
at this time.
A resume of applicant’s EPRs follows:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
23 May 94 5
23 May 95 5
23 May 96 5
23 May 97 5
20 Sep 97 5
20 Sep 98 5
20 Sep 99 5
31 Jul 00 5
A copy of a Report of Investigation regarding the Weighted Airman Promotion
System (WAPS) Test Compromise is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing
Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and recommended denial of
applicant’s request. A copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is
attached at Exhibit D.
The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA, also reviewed this application and
recommended denial of applicant’s request. A copy of the evaluation is
attached at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 15 September 2000, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to
the applicant for review and response within (30) thirty days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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. After thoroughly reviewing the
evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant should be
promoted to the grade of technical sergeant by the 98E6 promotion cycle.
Applicant contends that another individual cheated on the WAPS testing and
was promoted by the 98E6 cycle, thereby depriving him of promotion during
this cycle. Clearly the applicant is disappointed that he was not selected
for promotion by the 98E6; however, the fact remains that the individual
suspected of cheating was tried and acquitted by a court-martial. As a
result, the applicant became the number one non-select. Applicant’s
disappointment is understandable but he has not presented sufficient
persuasive evidence that he should be promoted to the grade of technical
sergeant by the 98E6 cycle. As indicated by AFPC/JA, the Air Force
attempted to show that another individual compromised the WAPS process;
however, the individual was not convicted and was promoted. Therefore, no
vacancy exists to allow the promotion of the applicant. In view of the
foregoing, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the
rational expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant
failed to sustain his burden of establishing the existence of either an
error or an injustice warranting favorable action on the request.
_________________________________________________________________
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 30 November 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
Mr. William E. Edwards, Member
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Mar 00.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. OSI Investigation - withdrawn.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 31 Jul 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 18 Aug 00.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Sep 00.
VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
Panel Chair
This date is within the cutoff requirement for the 98E6 promotion cycle and should be considered during the promotion process. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the application and states that current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36-2502) dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close out date of the DECOR 6,...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1999-01756
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/BCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Mil Testing Br, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the application and states that based on substantiated facts available at this time, it has been confirmed that one of the individuals who was selected for promotion to TSgt in the applicant’s promotion Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) during the 98E6 cycle, cheated on the Promotion Fitness Examination (PFE). If...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-02607
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02607 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 Feb 07 __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the grade of master sergeant (MSgt) (E-7) as if selected during cycle 00E7. If the applicant had been promoted during cycle 00E7, his date of rank...
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, Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP) must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. This decoration does not meet the criteria for promotion credit during the 00E7 cycle, because...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02215
Her promotion test to staff sergeant (SSgt) for cycle 88A5 be scored and credited for promotion. DPPPWB finds no error or injustice occurred when the applicant was required to retest after it was discovered that she took the wrong test. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02286 COUNSEL: MAJ THOMAS L. FARMER HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive a direct promotion to master sergeant with an effective date of promotion and a date of rank as a promotee in the SDI 8J000, Correctional Custody career field for 1998 or 1999. The applicant believes that two of the...
Ltr, HQ AFPC/JA, dtd May 20, 1 9 9 8 , w/Atch DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS MEMORANDUM FOR SAF/MIBR 4 May, 1998 FROM: HQ AFPCDPPPWE 550 C St West Ste 10 Randolph AFB TX 78150-4712 SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Records We have reviewed an adjustment to his date of rank to 1 Aug 96. application and recommend approval of his request for As documented in the application, f selected for promotion to MSgt during...
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...
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...