RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  0002067
            INDEX CODE:  131.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive supplemental  promotion  consideration  to  master  sergeant  for
cycle 95E7, using the test scores from cycle 97E7 vice 96E7.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His test scores from cycle 96E7 were applied to cycle 95A7. His test  scores
from cycle 97E7 should have been applied to the next cycle, 95E7.  There  is
no printed directive to support the decision to apply his  cycle  96E7  test
scores to cycles 95A7 and 95E7.  The decision was arbitrary and based  on  a
personal opinion.

In support of his request applicant submitted a copy of AFPC/DPPPWM  message
051530Z Jun 00; a memorandum from AFPC/DPPRRC,  dated  8  Mar  00;  AF  Form
1613, "Statement of Service;" his memorandum to AFPC/DPPPWM,  dated  14  Jun
00; and, an email message.

His complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air  Force  on  9
Feb 82.  He has continued to serve on active duty and is  currently  serving
in the grade of master sergeant with an effective date and date of  rank  of
01 Dec 97.

On 8 Mar 00, while computing applicant's Service  Date  under  10  USC  1405
(Computation of Years of Service),  AFPC/DPPRR  discovered  that  his  Total
Active  Federal  Military  Service  Date  (TAFMSD),  as  reflected  in   the
Personnel Data System (PDS), was incorrect.

Upon correcting  the  error,  applicant  became  eligible  for  supplemental
consideration for promotion to  the  grades  of  staff  sergeant,  technical
sergeant and master sergeant, beginning with cycle 84A5 to  staff  sergeant.
As a result, applicant was selected for earlier promotion to staff  sergeant
and technical sergeant and received retroactive  dates  of  rank  (DOR)  for
each.  Subsequent to  his  DOR  change  to  technical  sergeant,  he  became
eligible for supplemental promotion  consideration  to  master  sergeant  in
cycles 95A7 and 95E7.  Applying his test scores from cycle  96E7,  applicant
was not selected  for  supplemental  promotion  for  both  cycles.   He  was
considered and not selected for supplemental promotion in  cycle  96E7,  and
selected for supplemental promotion  to  master  sergeant  for  cycle  97E7,
using test scores that he  received  when  he  previously  tested  in  those
cycles.  His DOR to master sergeant has been back-dated accordingly.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed applicant's  request  and  recommends  denial.   DPPPWB
states the reason for using the test scores from the first  available  cycle
in providing supplemental consideration for  previous  cycles,  where  there
are no test scores available, is these tests more  closely  mirror  the  Air
Force knowledge and processes, procedures, and equipment  for  a  particular
specialty that would have been measured in the unavailable tests.   That  is
why applicant’s 96E7 test scores were  applied  to  cycles  95A7  and  95E7.
This has been a long-standing policy  since  promotion  under  the  Weighted
Airman Promotion System (WAPS) began in 1970.  It is neither capricious  nor
arbitrary.

The applicant was provided proper supplemental promotion  consideration  for
all affected cycles.  His request to use the test  scores  from  cycle  97E7
for the 95E7 cycle would not  be  fair  or  equitable  as  he  was  provided
promotion consideration using the same policy  and  procedures  afforded  to
others under similar circumstances (see Exhibit B).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded to the Air Force advisory and states that the policy  to
use the first available test scores is old and  outdated  and  has  been  in
effect for such a long time because no one has bothered to challenge  it  or
the policy.  It is a policy of convenience that makes paperwork  easier  and
has very little consideration for the person it affects.  A change  in  this
policy would bring the Air Force into the 21st Century.

The statement that the first available test scores more closely  mirror  the
Air Force knowledge and processes, procedures and equipment in a  particular
specialty  would  be  valid  if  major  changes  occurred  in   the   Career
Development Course (CDC) in both  content  and  volume  for  his  Air  Force
Specialty Code (AFSC).  There were no major changes in  the  study  material
for his AFSC in either content or volume.  The material covered in the  96E7
test cycle is the same material in the 97E7 and 98E7 test cycles.

The major flaw in the policy is that it assumes  that  the  individual  will
remain static and not study nor try to improve the test scores in  the  next
cycle.  He spent numerous hours studying for the 97E7  cycle  and  increased
his test scores.  Applying logic would  allow  his  96E7  scores,  from  the
first time he tested, to be applied to his 95A7 cycle and his  97E7  scores,
from the second time he tested, to be applied to his 95E7 cycle.

The AFPC policy is old, rigid, and not in written form.  It  does  not  take
into account the dynamics of an individual who desires  to  proceed  to  the
next grade and as such do what it takes to make a score  above  the  cut-off
in the next cycle.  It is a policy which favors AFPC at the expense  of  the
individual.

In support of his response applicant has provided a  copy  of  his  DD  Form
1966, Application for Enlistment (see 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 injustice.  While we  disagree  with  the  applicant’s
arguments concerning the supplemental  promotion  consideration  policy,  we
believe an exception to that policy should be made in his case based on  the
following discussion.  Because of a  long-standing  error  in  his  records;
i.e., the applicant’s total active federal military  service  date  (TAFMSD)
was incorrect, once the error was detected and corrected, he was  considered
and selected via the supplemental process for earlier  promotions  to  staff
sergeant and technical sergeant.  Had the applicant actually  been  promoted
to these grades on the  earlier  dates,  he  would  have  been  eligible  to
compete for promotion to master sergeant during the 95A7 and 95E7  promotion
cycles.  Applicant contends that if not for the error,  he  would  have  had
the opportunity to compete along with his  peers  in  each  cycle,  thus  he
would have been able to apply himself appropriately and,  more  importantly,
he would have had the same opportunity to study and improve his test  scores
as his peers.  Applicant believes that the decision to apply his  96E7  test
scores to both  cycles  unfairly  prevented  him  from  receiving  promotion
consideration on a fair and equitable basis.  We agree.   We  are  persuaded
by the circumstances presented in this case that, through no  fault  of  his
own, applicant has suffered  the  adverse  effects  of  an  error  that  has
existed in his records for over 17 years, which potentially had  a  negative
affect on his ability to develop his skills and abilities in a  more  timely
manner.  In view of the unusual circumstances present in this case  and  the
short period of time the applicant had to study and test,  we  believe  that
the decision to apply his 96E7 test scores against both  missed  cycles  was
unjust.  In view of the aforementioned and in order to afford the  applicant
the greatest  relief  possible  to  rectify  the  negative  effects  of  the
promotion injustices resulting from the erroneous TAFMSD, it is our  opinion
that ends of justice would  best  be  served  by  granting  the  applicant’s
request.  Accordingly, we believe that the  applicant’s  records  should  be
corrected as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

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 master sergeant for all appropriate  cycles  beginning  with  cycle
95E7 using his Weighted Airman  Promotion  System  (WAPS)  test  scores  for
cycle 97E7.

If selected for promotion to master sergeant by supplemental  consideration,
he be provided any  additional  supplemental  consideration  required  as  a
result of that selection.

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  any  higher  grades,  immediately  after  such  promotion  the
records shall be corrected to show  that  he  was  promoted  to  the  higher
grades on the date of rank established by  the  supplemental  promotion  and
that he 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 22 Nov 00, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
      Ms. Marcia J. Bachman, Member
      Ms. Margaret A. Zook, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jul 00, w/Atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 17 Aug 00.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Sep 00.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Sep 00, w/Atch.




                                  TERRY A. YONKERS
                                  Panel Chair


AFBCMR 00-02067




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 APPLICANT, be provided supplemental consideration for promotion
to the grade of master sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with
cycle 95E7 using his Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) test scores
for cycle 97E7.

      If selected for promotion to master sergeant by supplemental
consideration, he be provided any additional supplemental consideration
required as a result of that selection.

      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 any higher grades, immediately after such promotion the
records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher
grades on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and
that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as
of that date.







  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency