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.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Improper manipulation of eligibility criteria for the Weighted Airmen
Promotion System (WAPS) testing in his career field wrongfully denied
him promotion to the rank of master sergeant in 1998 and 1999.
Personnel ineligible to test in the Correctional Custody career field,
Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 8J000, competed in this field and
gained promotion to master sergeant. To correct this injustice, he
asks to be promoted to that grade with the date of rank assigned to
the ineligible 1998 or 1999 selectees. In 1998, two technical
sergeants ineligible to test in his career field were permitted to do
so. Both finished ahead of him. He was the number two non-select.
An AFPC/IG investigation confirmed the ineligibility of the number one
non-select. Despite this fact, this same technical sergeant again
tested under SDI 8J000 career field in 1999. This time he received
the promotion and the applicant was the top non-select. The member has
submitted letters from his area defense counsel,
the AFPC/IG and other documentation.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the
grade of TSgt (E-6).
The promotion cycles at issue are 98E7 to MSgt (promotions effective 1
August 1998 and 1 July 1999) and 99E7 (promotions effective 1 August
1999 and 1 July 2000). The Special Duty Identifier (SDI) in question
is 8J000, Correctional Custody Supervisor. Based on the small
eligible population in this SDI, four for the 98E7 cycle and two for
the 99E7 cycle, there was only one select for each cycle. The
applicant’s total promotion score for the 98E7 cycle was 327.91 and
for the 99E7 cycle, his score was 291.45 under the Special Duty
Identifier (SDI) 8J000. The select for 98E7 scored 404.54; the select
for 99E7 scored 373.10.
The Superintendent, High Level Inquiries Division, HQ AFPC/MSH
conducted an investigation concerning testing irregularities. The
allegations were partially substantiated that a member was improperly
assigned to the Special Duty Identifier. They further investigated
the possible impact of that action with regard to the 98E7 promotion
cycle results and determined there was no impact and thus, no change
to the applicant’s selection status. The complete evaluation is at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the
applicant’s request and recommended denial. An individual is
considered for promotion in the Control Air Force Specialty Code
(CAFSC), Reporting Identifier (RI), or Special Duty Identifier (SDI),
that he/she possesses on the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD)
for the respective promotion cycle. The PECD is the date used to
determine which decorations and Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRS)
are to be used in the promotion consideration (weighted points are
assigned for each), as well as which RI, SDI, or CAFSC the member will
be considered. Both individuals the applicant believes should not
have been considered with him held SDI 8J000 on the 31 Dec 97 PECD for
the 98E7 cycle and were properly considered. The Personnel Data
System (PDS) reflects the individual who was selected for this cycle
held SDI 8J000 effective Oct 97, two months prior to the 31 Dec 97
PECD and was a valid select. The other individual who was the number
one nonselect (based on total points assigned for decorations, EPRs,
time-in-grade (TIG), time-in-service (TIS), and test) was assigned the
SDI effective 1 Nov 97. Even if these two individuals had not been
considered in SDI 8J000, the applicant would still not have been
selected for this cycle. Another individual who had a total score of
331.53, 3.64 points higher than the applicant’s score of 327.91, would
have been selected. It would have made no difference if there had been
four eligible or two eligible; the applicant would still not have been
selected based on his total score.
During the 99E7 cycle, there were two eligible in SDI 8J000, the
applicant and TSgt W____ who was selected with a total score of
373.10. The applicant’s total score was 291.45. The applicant’s
claim that the other individual illegally competed against him in SDI
8J000, which prevented him from an automatic promotion, is without
basis. The 3rd Support Group Commander selected TSgt W___ to fill the
8J000 position. The change was effective 1 November 1997, prior
to the 31 December 1997 and 31 December 1998 PECDs for the 98E7 and
99E7 cycles. The commander stated that in the best interest of the
Air Force and the 3rd Wing, he authorized TSgt W’s___ AFSC (SDI) be
changed from 8T000 (Professional Military Education (PME) Instructor)
to 8J000 (Correctional Custody Supervisor). HQ PACAF/DPPET stated
that the 3rd Wing had an open position (8J000) that was funded and not
manned. TSgt W___ was placed in that position and given a duty title
of Superintendent, Complaints and Inquiries. This action was also
approved by HQ PACAF/DPA and HQ AFPC. As recently as 1 October 1999
(after TSgt W___ had been selected for promotion to MSgt as an 8J000
for the 99E7 cycle), the 3rd MSS/DPM concluded that all actions taken
in 1997 to move TSgt W___ from PME Instructor Duty to a valid 8J000
position in the Wing IG Office were appropriate since the local Wing
Commander in conjunction with manpower officials is responsible for
determining the appropriate AFSCs to be reflected on the Unit Manpower
Document. This individual was in the 8J000 SDI billet from 1 November
1997 until he retrained into the 3A0X1 AFSC effective 29 March 1999.
As such, TSgt W___ was appropriately considered and selected as an
8J000 for the 99E7 promotion cycle to MSgt.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant’s counsel disagreed with the recommendation not to grant
his applicant’s request for direct promotion to master sergeant.
Counsel stated that TSgt W___ performed none of the special duties
associated with 8J000 identifier. His assignment to the position
afforded him an undeserved and improper competitive advantage over
personnel, such as the applicant who was actually performing the
demanding duties required in the Correctional Custody career field.
Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit F.
In support of the applicant’s appeal, MGen F___ submitted a letter in
behalf of the applicant (Exhibit G).
_________________________________________________________________
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 warranting promotion to
the grade of master sergeant. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence
of record, we conclude the following:
a. With respect to promotion cycle 98E7, it appears that four
individuals were considered in SDI 8J000 and only one was selected for
promotion. The applicant believes that two of the individuals
considered, to include the selectee, were ineligible for promotion
consideration; however, the IG substantiated that only one of these
two individuals, the number one non-select, was not actually
performing the duties of SDI 8J000, Correctional Custody, on the PECD.
Nonetheless, the selectee for cycle 98E7 was performing these duties,
and without question, was eligible for promotion consideration.
Additionally, there was one other individual who tested and apparently
scored higher than the applicant. Therefore, regardless of the
applicant’s contentions, he would not have been a selectee for cycle
98E7.
b. Notwithstanding the above finding, we believe that the
applicant should be promoted to the grade of master sergeant by cycle
99E7. Through a series of changes to his Air Force Specialty Codes
(AFSC), the actual selectee for cycle 99E7, who was the number one non-
select for cycle 98E7, apparently held the SDI of 8J000 on the PECD
for that cycle. However, while the Air Force indicates that the
selectee was properly considered and selected, it is apparent to this
Board that he was not performing the duties of Correctional Custody,
rather he was performing duties of the Superintendent of Complaints
and Inquiries in the Wing IG office, merely filling a vacant, funded,
and unmanned billet. While this may have been appropriate on the
basis that it is the Wing Commander’s prerogative to determine the
appropriate AFSCs to be reflected on the Unit Manning Document, in our
opinion, the applicant was precluded from receiving fair and equitable
consideration for promotion. In this respect, the applicant appears
to have performed Correctional Custody duties for 11 years, as noted
by the Commander, 37 TRW, Air Education and Training Command.
Therefore, we believe that any doubt should be resolved in favor of
the applicant and we recommend his records be corrected to the extent
indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was promoted to
the grade of master sergeant, effective and with a date of rank of 1
May 2000.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 14 Feb 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Panel Chair
Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Member
Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, 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. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. IG Report, withdrawn.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 13 Sep 00
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 29 Sep 00.
Exhibit F. Counsel Response, dated 26 Oct 00.
Exhibit G. Letter, 37 TRW/CC, dated 8 Nov 00.
PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 00-02286
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 corrected to show that he was
promoted to the grade of master sergeant, effective and with a date
of rank of 1 May 2000.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
In this respect, we note that the applicant was supplementally considered, and selected for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant during cycle 95E6. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with...
However, the Board did find sufficient evidence to warrant his supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for cycles 98E7, 99E7, and 00E7, using his test scores from cycle 01E7 (Exhibit G). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing, AFPC/DPPPWB, states that the applicant was ineligible to test for cycle 01E7 because of his High...
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...
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...
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-2004-02631
Although the UMD applicant provided reflects that a staff sergeant position existed, it does not justify placing a master sergeant 7-level against that position. In support of his request, he submits Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) reflecting his DAFSC as 8J000, statements from the squadron commander and command chief master sergeant, Unit Manning Documents (UMDs), and a WAPS promotion testing notification for cycle 02E8 listing his AFSC as 8J000. ...
1211(f) “Action under this section [1211] shall be taken on a fair and equitable basis, with regard being given to the probable opportunities for advancement and promotion that the member might reasonably have had if his name had not been placed on the temporary disability retired list.” Simply stated, if he were never on the TDRL, he would have probably scored well enough on the 96E7 test to be promoted in that cycle. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
In support of the appeal, applicant submits statements from the Vice Commander and Director of Personnel, Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC); the squadron commander; his supervisor, and a copy of the E-mail message which requested the RDP. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that since selections were made for the 98E7 cycle on 19 May 1998, his total...
In support of the appeal, applicant submits statements from the Vice Commander and Director of Personnel, Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC); the squadron commander; his supervisor, and a copy of the E-mail message which requested the RDP. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that since selections were made for the 98E7 cycle on 19 May 1998, his total...
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...