RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03286
INDEX CODE: 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His 26 February 2003 Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) test be
verified.
NOTE: The applicant tested for promotion to the grade of master
sergeant (E-7) during promotion cycle 03E7.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
An error may have occurred during the scoring of his Specialty
Knowledge Test (SKT) based on questions being deleted. In addition,
the score he received does not reflect the time and effort he put into
getting promoted to E-7.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement
and a copy of his WAPS score notice. The applicant’s complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)
reveals the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date
(TAFMSD) as 8 March 1984. He is currently serving on active duty in
the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), with an effective date and date
of rank of 1 May 1999. Applicant's Enlisted Performance Report (EPR)
profile for the last five reporting periods follows:
Period Ending Evaluation
15 Dec 99 5 - Immediate Promotion
15 Dec 00 5
15 Dec 01 4 - Ready for Promotion
15 Dec 02 5
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application be denied. DPPPWB states
that the applicant received a score of 54.17 on the SKT for cycle
03E7. His total promotion score was 317.01 and the score required for
selection in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 330.39. The
applicant has tested two other times for promotion to E-7 and received
an SKT score of 32.63 for cycle 01E7 and 44.32 for cycle 02E7.
DPPPWB indicates that four questions were deleted from the applicant’s
SKT for cycle 03E7 because they were faulty. The applicant’s score
was derived from the remaining 96 scorable items, of which he answered
52 correctly for a final promotion score of 54.17. Test answer sheets
are computer scored and verification requirements are stringent--
accurate results are absolutely critical. Many safeguards were
established--high-quality paper and printing of the answer sheets, a
specially designed optical scanner and a complex series of
crosschecks. The validation process is designed to detect every
condition that would cause inaccuracies. As a continuing part of
AFPC’s quality control procedures, a random sample of tests is hand-
scored each cycle and the results compared against the computer score.
Since the WAPS was approved by the Secretary of the Air Force on 3
July 1968, over 50,000 tests have been manually scored and the results
compared against the computer score. Not once has AFPC found the
computer score in error. The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit
B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 31
October 2003 for review and response. As of this date, no response
has been received by this office (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
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 have seen no evidence of inappropriate action on the part
of the Air Force. Although the applicant believes there may have been
a scoring error, we note that the WAPS testing process is very
stringent and has many safeguards in order to detect inaccuracies. We
therefore agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain
his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice. In
view of the above and absent 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 this application in
Executive Session on 14 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Panel Chair
Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member
Mr. Charlie E. Williams Jr., Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-03286.
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Sep 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 9 Oct 03.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.
ROSCOE HINTON JR.
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...
A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C. The Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated promotion ineligibility, because of weight, is the same as all other ineligibility conditions outlined in AFI 36-2502. DPPPWB stated the applicant tested 21 Feb 97 for promotion cycle 97E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98) and the PECD for this cycle was 31 Dec 96. Pursuant to the Board’s request, DPPPWB provided an unofficial copy...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01418
[Examiner’s Note: AFPC has administratively corrected the applicant’s record to reflect four awards of the AFAM] He be promoted to the grade of master sergeant (MSgt) as if selected during cycle 03E7. 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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been...
As an alternative, if the Board determines that the applicant has suffered an injustice, it could consider directing supplemental consideration using the applicant’s PFE score from the next cycle, 02E7 (testing 15 Feb -31 Mar 02), and applying it retroactively to the 01E7 cycle. While it does appear that the applicant was provided erroneous information regarding what he would be tested on, we do not believe it warrants direct promotion. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02295
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03367
Members of the Board, Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Ms. Martha Maust, and Ms. Carolyn B. Willis considered this application on 2 March 2004. Ltr, AFPC/DPPPWB, dtd 26 Jan 04 AFBCMR BC-2003-03367 INDEX CODE: 100.00, 110.03, 128.00, 131.00 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code, Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00862
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 05E7 promotion cycle. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02008
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02008 INDEX CODE: 131.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 29 DEC 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The test scores from cycle 07E7 be removed from his records and that he be allowed to retest. They state if the applicant felt the environmental condition of the classroom was...
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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-02591
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPD reviewed this application and recommended denial, stating, in part, applicant was separated from active service on 8 Aug 05 due to a physical disability and permanently disability retired under the provisions of Title 10 USC 1201. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...