RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-02847
INDEX CODE 131.00
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be promoted to the grade of master sergeant (MSgt) effective 30 May
02 and that he be retired in the grade of MSgt, rather than technical
sergeant (TSgt), on 1 Aug 03.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
A glitch resulted in his extension paperwork not being entered in the
personnel data system (PDS) prior to the promotion eligibility cutoff
date (PECD). He received no promotion RIPs stating that he was
supposed to test so he continued to work. On 9 May 02 he was notified
that he was scheduled to test on 30 May 02. He usually takes two weeks
off to prepare for testing. If he had received a promotion RIP he
would have been tested in cycle like he should have been and he would
have no complaint. He asserts he should have been promoted to MSgt on
30 May 02.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 Oct 81.
On 12 Jun 01, he requested his six-year reenlistment on 7 Apr 94 be
extended for six months for retainability to qualify for a permanent
change of station (PCS). His request was approved on 8 Aug 01.
In the meantime, Special Order AA---, dated 25 Jun 01, directed the
applicant’s humanitarian assignment from the ---th Transportation
Squadron (--- TS) at ---- AFB, --, to the --rd Transportation Squadron
(-- TS) at --- AFB, --, with a report no later than date of 31 Jul 01.
According to emails provided by the applicant (Exhibit A), on 20 Mar
02 his squadron section requested a test date for him as he had not
been identified on the promotion eligibility roster. The applicant was
courtesy-copied on this message. Apparently, he was not showing up in
the PDS. As a result, the PDS did not reflect the applicant’s
extension until 7 May 02, after the PECD and normal testing period for
cycle 02E7 (15 Feb-31 Mar). The applicant was notified on 9 May 02
that he was scheduled to test on 30 May 02. The applicant filed a
complaint on 8 May 02 with the -- AW Inspector General (IG).
The applicant tested for MSgt on 30 May 02. His total promotion score
was 291.55; however, the score required for selection to MSgt in his
Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 317.60. The applicant’s Weighted
Airmen Promotion System (WAPS) test verification and score (AF Form
1566), as well as his Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs), are at
Exhibit B.
On 15 Jul 02, an IG investigation advised the applicant that his
extension data did not migrate in a timely manner when the database
transitioned from the old system (PC-III) to the new system (MILMOD).
His unit became aware on 19 Mar 02 that he had not been identified on
the promotion eligibility roster. A test date was obtained for him
and, although he did not test in the regular window, his test score
was considered for that testing cycle. The IG determined his unit
acted properly in their response to this issue, that the error was not
due to neglect on the part of any office, and that the transition from
PC-III to MILMOD caused numerous members Air Force-wide to seek
correction to records.
The applicant retired in the grade of TSgt on 1 Aug 03 with 21 years,
9 months and 17 days of active service.
AFI 36-2605 provides guidance on individual responsibilities (Para.
1.19), eligibility criteria (Atch 9.5.), testing out-of-cycle (Atch
9.11), and test preparation (Atch 9.10).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advises that the applicant’s test results ran with all
other eligibles for that cycle. The applicant contends he tested one
day after line numbers were announced; however, he tested on 30 May 02
and selections were not made until 17 Jun 02, with a release date of
27 Jun 02. DPPPWB notes that even if the applicant was notified of his
30 May 02 test date on 9 May 02, this still gave him more than three
weeks of study time, not to mention the extra two and one-half to
three months from the time he would have normally tested (15 Feb-31
Mar). He knew his extension had been approved back in Aug 01 and it
was just a matter of having the information updated in the system as
to when, not if, he would test. Current Air Force policy does not
allow for automatic promotion as the applicant is requesting. He was
provided fair and equitable promotion consideration in accordance with
existing policy using the same procedures that are afforded to others
similarly situated. Therefore, denial is recommended.
A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 17 Oct 03 for review and comment within 30 days. As of
this date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not
persuaded that he should be promoted and retired in the grade of MSgt.
The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find
these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to
override the evidence of record and the rationale provided by the Air
Force. The applicant had more than three weeks in which to study, as
well as the extra two and one-half to three months from the time he
would have normally tested. He knew his extension was approved back in
Aug 01 and he acknowledged receipt of notification of a testing date.
An IG investigation determined his unit acted properly in their
response to this issue, the error was not due to neglect, and the
error was rectified upon discovery. Further, his individual
responsibilities are clearly outlined in AFI 36-2605. The applicant
was provided fair and equitable promotion consideration in accordance
with existing policy, using the same procedures afforded others
similarly situated. He had sufficient time in which to test but his
score was insufficient for selection. We fail to see how the
applicant’s promotion chances were unfairly or adversely affected. We
therefore adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision
that the applicant has not sustained his burden of having suffered
either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent
persuasive evidence to the contrary, we conclude this appeal should be
denied.
4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 this application in
Executive Session on 20 November 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-02847 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Aug 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 12 Sep 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Oct 03.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02258
Exceptions to this policy are only considered when the airman can support a previous submission with documentation or statements including conclusive evidence that the recommendation was officially placed into military channels within the prescribed time limits and conclusive evidence that the decoration was not acted upon due to loss or inadvertence. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00420
On 9 Apr 03, the applicant was awarded the contested AFCM 1OLC for the period 14 Feb 98 to 3 Jan 02, rather than 1 Dec 01, for meritorious service while assigned to the 86th Medical Squadron at Landstuhl, Germany. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR indicates since an IPCOT is not a condition for which an individual may be recommended for a decoration, it appears the recommending official submitted the applicant for an...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00741
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAAD indicated that AFI 36-2110, Paragraph 2.29.6.3, requires a member who refuses to get PCS retainability to sign an AF Form 964 (PCS, TDY, or Training Declination Statement). The applicant executed the AF Form 964 and the assignment was cancelled and his promotion line number was taken away. The applicant stated that his MPF failed to inform him that he would lose his promotion line number to...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03434
MSgt K---, a member of his AFS (4Y0X0), was attending the First Sergeant Academy and her record was scored in the 4Y0X0 career field. Each individual's record was corrected, they were provided supplemental promotion consideration, and not selected for promotion in the 8F000 CAFSC. Therefore, the CAFSC effective date would be the date assigned duty--11 Nov 04.
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 | CY2002 | BC-2002-02705
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02705 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt) for cycle 02E8 with his record corrected to include the citation for the Air Force Commendation Medal, Third...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02750
The inclusive date of the AFCM is March 1997 to August 2000, in accordance with AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, paragraph 3.4.2., the effective date of all decorations is the closing date of the service period recognized regardless of the order date. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR reviewed applicant's request and states that the decoration was submitted into official channels and awarded within...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01960
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, must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. No evidence was presented which showed to the Board majority’s satisfaction that the decoration was placed in official channels prior to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00838
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB states that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the closeout date of the decoration must be on or before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD). A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 11 July 2003, for...