RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03978
INDEX NUMBER: 131.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be considered for promotion to master sergeant (MSgt) using the
same version of the Promotion Fitness Examination (PFE) as that given
to his peers.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The version of the PFE that he was given was incorrect. He is
concerned about the fairness of competing for promotion using a
different test than his peers.
In support of his appeal applicant has provided a copy of a memorandum
he wrote to his Military Personnel Flight (MPF) recounting the
sequence of events that led to his being tested using the incorrect
version of the PFE. His memorandum was indorsed by his unit commander
who stated that he was concerned about the apparent inequities the
applicant had to endure in his pursuit to be promoted. The commander
stated that the applicant should be tested again. The applicant also
provides statements from other individuals that tested the same day
and corroborate that the applicant questioned whether he was taking
the correct version of the PFE.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was scheduled to test for promotion to MSgt for cycle
02E7. He was mistakenly administered the wrong PFE. When he
questioned the test monitor about it, he was told that he should
continue taking the incorrect version and that it would not affect his
score. He was advised that there was a method for scoring when an
incorrect version of the PFE is taken.
Additional facts relevant to this case are contained in the evaluation
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force found at Exhibit
C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s request. They state
that action taken in the applicant’s case was consistent with
established procedures and handled properly ensuring the applicant
competed fairly for promotion without an unfair disadvantage or
advantage.
The applicant was administered the wrong test. However, there is a
method for equitably scoring the test when the incorrect version has
been administered.
In order to increase test security, in 1999 the Air Force began using
multiple test versions of the PFE and United States Supervisory
Examination (USAFSE). Since members compete for promotion by Air
Force Specialty Code (AFSC), everyone in an AFSC is required to take
the same version of the test. There are occasional instances where a
member takes a different version because the member was confused about
their control AFSC due to retraining, restructure of an AFSC, etc.
For fairness, test scores within an AFSC need to be comparable. When
a member takes a different version than the others competing for
promotion in his or her AFSC, the incorrect test version is equated
through a scientific process, which allows the scores on two different
versions to be compared. The process accounts for the differences in
test difficulty and computes what a member’s score would have been had
they taken the correct version. The equated scores are scientifically
accurate, equitable, and legally defensible.
The different versions of the PFE and USAFSE are content equivalent
(because they are based on the same outline) but not parallel
(different versions of the same test do not have the same means and
standard deviation). Equating procedures allows the Air Force to
derive a score from the wrong test based on the correct mean and
standard deviation, which makes the score comparable to the others.
AFPC/DPPPWB provides an explanation of “mean” and standard deviation
and how the process works.
To require an individual who has taken one test to retest creates
inequities. Individuals who don’t retest believe those that get to
retest have an inherent advantage because they get to test a second
time. Those individuals required to retest believe they are at a
disadvantage because they have to prepare to test again in a more
limited timeframe. Although the results of an examinee that took the
wrong test are based on a different test, the results are
scientifically equivalent and can be fairly compared to the results
from the correct test. No one is required to test a second time.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
14 Feb 03 for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response
has not been received.
_________________________________________________________________
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 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 to the
contrary, 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 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 Docket Number BC-2002-
03978 in Executive Session on 7 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Dec 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 7 Jan 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.
JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
Panel Chair
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...
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 | 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...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02361
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. Complete copies of the applicant’s responses, with attachments, are at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advised that prior to the start of the promotion cycle, CFMs are advised that if they feel it is appropriate for the suffix and “slick” AFSCs...
The applicant’s records under this selection process must be better than all the records below the board score required for selection and equal to or better than at least one of the records that had the board score needed for promotion. If the applicant had been considered by the initial 00E8 Evaluation Board he would have needed a board score of 352.50 to have been selected. During the supplemental process, his records were benchmarked with three records that a received a 352.50 board...
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-2005-02310
Not every IDMT-qualified member was identified, mostly because they were not in an IDMT position. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01305
The applicant was the number one non-select of the seven individuals considered for promotion in his AFSC. There were seven eligibles in the 1A4X0 AFSC at the time selects were run on 29 October 2002, resulting in one promotion quota. The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He feels the Air Force advisory has not addressed the issue of accountability to written Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02313
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. We therefore conclude the fair and right thing to do is to recommend the 4N0X1C members be given supplemental consideration in the CAFSC 4N0X1 for the 05E6/05E7 promotion cycle. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...