RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02310
            INDEX CODE:  131.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  26 Jan 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

As an Independent Duty  Medical  Technician  (IDMT),  he  be  afforded
supplemental promotion consideration for promotion cycle 05E6  in  the
Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of 4N0X1, rather than 4N0X1C, and  his
promotion status be changed from non-select to select to the grade  of
technical sergeant (TSgt).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 1 Nov 04, the 4N0X1C AFSC was established.  Prior  to  that,  IDMTs
were classified as 4N0X1s.   Personnel  policy  considers  AFSCs  with
suffixes to be separate AFSCs for promotion testing.  However, the Air
Force Career Field Manager (CFM) advised the career field that, as  an
exception to policy, the 4N0X1C AFSC would compete  in  the  same  4N0
pool, forming a larger group of eligibles.  The 4N0X1C  eligibles  did
take the same promotion tests,  but  were  in  fact  considered  as  a
separate group.  The cutoff score for the 4N0X1C AFSC was higher  than
the 4N0s, the difference being attributed to the  fewer  eligibles  in
the 4N0X1C field.

The applicant provides briefing/training notes from the 4N0X1/B/C CFM.
 His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The  following  information  was  extracted   from   the   applicant’s
submissions (Exhibits A, D, and  I)  and  the  Air  Force  evaluations
(Exhibits B, E, F, and G):

A “slick” AFSC indicates the basic  classification;  an  AFSC  with  a
suffix indicates a “shred” or specialized category.

Members are considered for promotion based on their Control Air  Force
Specialty Code (CAFSC) as of the  Promotion  Eligibility  Cutoff  Date
(PECD).  If the CAFSC is incorrectly updated in the Military Personnel
Data System (MilPDS), the member will be considered  incorrectly.   On
test day, the member must verify his/her CAFSC on  an  AF  Form  1566.
After the promotion release, military personnel flights (MPFs) conduct
data verification, to include the CAFSC, on each member  selected  for
promotion.  If a member was selected with  the  wrong  CAFSC,  his/her
score must exceed the cutoff score in the correct CAFSC  in  order  to
remain a selectee.

In this case, individuals who were qualified as IDMTs originally  were
included in the existing basic or “slick”  AFSC  of  4N0X1  (Aerospace
Medical  Service).   The  differences  between  the   two   technician
categories are training  and  experience.   All  IDMTs  are  qualified
medical technicians and are dual-qualified for either the 4N0X1 or the
4N0X1C CAFSC.  However, IDMTs are further specialized and  trained  to
be able to serve in remote, isolated and/or undesirable duty locations
as members of mobile medical units where it would not be practical  or
cost-effective to have a medical doctor on site.

On 13 May 04, HQ AFPC approved  reclassifying  IDMTs  serving  in  the
4N0X1 “slick” CAFSC as a separate and distinct shred classification of
4N0X1C, to be effective 31 Oct 04.  Because of the critical  need  for
IDMTs, the Air Force wanted to identify all  IDMT-skilled  individuals
so they could  be  matched  with  positions  requiring  their  special
skills.  Not all IDMT  personnel  occupied  positions  requiring  IDMT
skills.  Consequently, positions that required IDMT skills also needed
to be identified.  This identification and conversion process required
the base medical treatment facilities, the 82 MPFs, and  the  manpower
and assignment functional organizations to work together  to  identify
which members were qualified IDMTs and then determine  what  positions
would  be  converted.   It  was  also  incumbent  on  the  member   to
acknowledge and verify AFSC award  actions.   HQ AFPC/DPPAC  initially
expected to identify and convert approximately 670 IDMT positions  and
identify approximately 495 qualified IDMT personnel.  By all accounts,
the conversion process did not go smoothly.

Based on Emails and briefing  notes  provided  by  several  applicants
appealing this  issue,  during  the  Jun 04  timeframe  the  Aerospace
Medical Service CFM, the Air Combat  Command  (ACC)  4N0X1  Functional
Manager,  and  the   4N0X1/B/C   CFM   provided   briefings   on   the
reclassification.  Essentially, the career leadership told  the  field
that, for the Calendar Year 2005 (CY05) promotion cycle,  IDMTs  would
compete for promotion with all 4N0s and, unless otherwise  determined,
would not compete for promotion within the  4N0X1C  AFSC  until  CY06.
The 4N0X1/B/C CFM indicated he did not submit a  subpopulation  waiver
for the 4N0X1 AFSC because of his misconception.

The 4N0X1C shred was effective on 31 Oct 04.   The  4N071  Skills  and
Knowledge Test (SKT) would be applicable to all  4N0X1  personnel,  to
include the C shred.

On 3 Nov 04, prior to the promotion cycle for SSgts to MSgt, CFMs were
advised that, contrary to what  the  career  leadership  had  briefed,
IDMTs assigned to a 4N0X1C CAFSC  position  would  compete  separately
against themselves  rather  than  with  the  larger  4N0X1  group.   A
subpopulation waiver was not requested in this case by the 4N0X1C CFM.


Testing for the 4N0X1/4N0X1C 05E6 and 05E7 promotion cycles took place
during the period 15 Feb-31 Mar 05.  If the AFSCs had  been  combined,
the cutoff score would have been different  and  the  order  of  merit
would not have contained the same names above the select line.

As of 10 Dec 05, 578 IDMT 4N0X1C positions, rather than  the  expected
670,  had  been  identified.   Not  every  IDMT-qualified  member  was
identified, mostly because they were not in an  IDMT  position.   Some
may not have been  forthcoming  about  their  IDMT  skills  given  the
possible  assignment  to  remote  sites.   Even  if  all  IDMTs   were
identified during the conversion  process,  a  significant  percentage
would  not  be  in  places/positions  that  would  allow  them  to  be
immediately used as IDMTs.  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.

The applicant is currently serving in  the  grade  of  SSgt.   He  was
considered, but not selected, for promotion to the grade  of  TSgt  in
AFSC 4N0X1C during cycle 05E6 (promotions effective Aug 05 - Jul  06).
His total score was 304.58.  The score required for selection in  AFSC
4N0X1C was 308.27; the score required for selection in AFSC 4N0X1  was
299.73.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB notes that CFMs were  advised  that  suffix  AFSCs  are
considered  separate  skills  for  promotion  testing.    Further,   a
subpopulation waiver cannot be submitted for convenience  or  to  gain
more promotions by increasing the eligible pool size.   The  promotion
AFSC and how eligibles are considered for promotion is independent  of
which SKT personnel are administered.  There are instances where  test
requirements of AFSC “families”  are  the  same,  as  with  the  4N0s.
Consequently,  the  applicant  took  the  correct   tests.    It   was
unfortunate the CFM provided inaccurate information to the members  in
these AFSCs. However, to maintain the fairness and integrity of  WAPS,
DPPPWB contends they must  follow  the  same  policy  for  each  AFSC.
Denial is therefore recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation, dated 8 Aug 05,  was
forwarded to the applicant on 19 Aug 05 for review and  comment.   The
applicant asks the Board not to punish individuals  for  the  CFM  not
submitting the sub-population waiver as he was  supposed  to  do.   He
provides comments from the IDMT Association website to show  how  this
has affected the morale and dispositions of those in the career field.

The applicant provides  briefing/training  notes  from  the  Aerospace
Medical Service CFM and new information from the 4N0X1/B/C  CFM.   The
Aerospace Medical Service CFM stated  that,  for  Calendar  Year  2005
(CY05), IDMTs would compete for promotion with all  4N0s  and,  unless
otherwise determined, would compete for promotion  within  the  4N0X1C
AFSC in CY06.

A complete copy of the applicant’s submission, with attachments, is 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 to compete together for promotion consideration, the
CFM must request a subpopulation waiver through HQ USAF/DPPP.  In this
case, the CFM indicated in a telephone conversation that she was fully
aware of the subpopulation process but chose not to request a  waiver.
If a member incorrectly identified with the larger group gets selected
because his score exceeded the cutoff for that pool of eligibles,  but
his score would have been  insufficient  for  selection  had  he  been
properly considered under his correct CAFSC group, the member would be
rendered  a  nonselect.   This  would  only  be  brought  to  DPPPWB’s
attention by the MPF during the data verification process.  After  the
promotion release, MPFs must conduct data verification, to include the
CAFSC, on each member selected for promotion.  If identified as having
an incorrect CAFSC, a member would be rendered  a  nonselect  and,  in
most cases, the #1 nonselect would be promoted.  If the member’s score
beat the cutoff for the CAFSC, he/she would remain a select.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.

HQ  AFPC/DPPAC  advises  that  this  particular  conversion  was  more
difficult because IDMT manning was extremely  low  and  all  qualified
IDMT  personnel  were  not  in  locations  that  had  IDMT  positions.
Additionally, several qualified IDMTs, not  in  IDMT  positions,  were
reluctant  to  acknowledge  their  qualifications  because  of  future
assignments in the C shred  to  an  undesirable  duty  location.   The
contention that several applicants should  have  been  considered  for
promotion in the IDMT shred versus in the “slick” AFSC is  not  valid,
but the contention that every qualified IDMT was not identified during
the conversion is  true.   However,  quantifying  the  number  is  not
possible because most, if not all, that were not identified  were  not
assigned to an IDMT position at  the  time  of  the  conversion.   The
qualified IDMTs assigned to an IDMT position were correctly identified
and converted.   Additionally,  those  individuals  assigned  to  IDMT
positions were reported correctly as IDMTs and properly considered for
promotion in the smaller IDMT pool.  The CFM did not request a  waiver
for promotion consideration  as  a  single  pool;  so  each  pool  was
considered separately and the cutoff score  for  each  was  distinctly
different.  From a classification perspective, the primary problem was
identifying the IDMT positions early enough in the process to allow  a
certain amount of shifting resources to local IDMT positions where and
when possible.   But  the  biggest  obstacle  was  not  having  enough
qualified resources to fill the requirements.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit F.

HQ AFPC/JA indicates that the applicant is essentially  alleging  that
it is the system’s failure to fully identify  and  convert  all  IDMTs
into the same shred specialty  for  promotion  consideration  that  is
unfair and unjust.  In their opinion, the circumstances of  this  case
do not meet the burden of  proof  to  establish  an  injustice,  i.e.,
“treatment by military authorities that shocks the sense of  justice.”
They concur with HQ AFPC/DPPAC’s conclusions  that  those  individuals
assigned to IDMT positions were properly considered for  promotion  in
the smaller IDMT pool.  HQ AFPC/JA cannot discern any legal error that
occurred in the promotion testing process or in the  manner  in  which
the IDMTs who were converted to  the  new  AFSC  were  considered  for
promotion.   Despite  acknowledged  difficulties  in  identifying  and
converting all of the IDMTs into the same career field, the  facts  in
this case do not rise to the level of an  injustice  meriting  relief.
The IDMTs in the smaller promotion pool were competing  against  peers
who were assigned to these highly specialized positions that  required
the skills of a qualified IDMT.  On the other hand,  those  IDMTs  who
where not identified in the process who were not assigned to  an  IDMT
position were presumably not serving in a position that  required  the
skills of an IDMT.  Because  IDMTs  are  dual  qualified  and  can  be
assigned in either of the two AFSCs, those IDMTs that are not assigned
to an IDMT position would logically be considered for promotion in the
AFSC in which they were assigned.  They do not believe  the  promotion
outcome created by this distinction invalidates or renders the 05E6/E7
promotion  cycle  unjust.   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 in an IDMT position was not  identified
and converted to the 4N0X1C CAFSC  and,  as  a  result,  competed  for
promotion in the larger 4N0X1 promotion pool, the  member  could  have
his/her  line  number  removed  and  receive  supplemental   promotion
consideration in his/her proper AFSC.   While  the  05E6/E7  promotion
cycle could have been postponed until all  members  were  verified  as
being in the correct AFSC, they do not believe the  failure  to  delay
the promotion cycle resulted  in  any  material  error  or  injustice.
Accordingly, denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVALUATIONS:

Complete copies of the HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, HQ AFPC/DPPAC, and  HQ  AFPC/JA
advisories were forwarded to the applicant on 8 Feb 06 for review  and
comment within  30  days.   The  applicant  provided  a  response  and
disputed the facts presented in  the  advisories.   He  believes  that
since there was so much trouble  properly  identifying  all  qualified
individuals it makes more sense to have scored them under the  “slick”
cutoff  until  all  qualified  IDMTs  were  identified  and   properly
converted.  Based on the documents he  has  provided,  both  past  and
present  leadership  believed  that  the  subpopulation   waiver   was
completed.  Based on this fiasco, he contends IDMTs are  unhappy  with
the process and are disinclined to  recruit  others  into  the  career
field.

A complete copy of the applicant’s response is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  Our review of this  and  similar
applications before our consideration today found that  the  Aerospace
Medical Service CFM, the 4N0X1 Function Manager, and the 4N0X1/B/C CFM
had essentially briefed the field that for the  CY05  promotion  cycle
IDMTs would test and compete for promotion with the rest of the career
field, but would be  competing  only  against  other  IDMTs  in  CY06.
Further, the 4N0X1/B/C CFM did not submit a subpopulation  waiver  for
the 4N0X1 AFSC because of this misconception.  During this  conversion
process, the Air Force expected to identify  670  IDMT  positions  and
approximately  495  qualified   IDMT   personnel.    The   Air   Force
acknowledged  that  this  particular  conversion  was  more  difficult
because IDMT manning was extremely low  and  not  all  qualified  IDMT
personnel were in locations that had IDMT positions.  Further, several
qualified IDMTs--not in IDMT positions--apparently were  reluctant  to
acknowledge their qualifications because of future assignment in the C
shred to an undesirable duty location.  Also admitted was that, during
the conversion process, not every qualified IDMT  was  identified  and
that most, but not all, that were not identified were not assigned  to
an  IDMT  position.   The  primary  problems  seemed  to   have   been
identifying the IDMT positions early enough in the process to allow  a
certain amount of shifting of resources to local IDMT positions  where
and when possible, and not having enough qualified IDMTs to  fill  the
requirements.  Accounts appear to indicate  this  indirect  conversion
was not a smooth process.  By Mar 05, less  than  50%  of  the  career
field’s IDMTs had been converted to  the  4N0X1C  CAFSC.   All  things
considered, the process for the most part seems  to  have  been  in  a
state of flux when those members who had been  identified  as  4N0X1Cs
were considered in a separate group.  In  our  view,  a  more  prudent
decision may have been either to have the relevant individuals compete
in one large group for the 05E6/05E7 promotion cycle or delay separate
competition until CY06, as was briefed to the career  field.   We  did
not  reach  this  conclusion  lightly.   We   fully   considered   the
contentions made by AFPC/DPPPWB, AFPC/DPPAC,  and  AFPC/JA.   We  also
understand that the 4N0X1s and the 4N0X1Cs took the same SKT, and that
sometimes  there  is  a  human  tendency  perhaps  not  to  apply   as
significant an effort when one is competing in a larger  group,  where
the odds of a lower cutoff score may  be  better,  than  if  one  were
competing in a smaller group.  However, the Air Force has  a  critical
need for IDMTs and already suffers from a significant  shortage.   The
comments of these  applicants,  and  those  on  the  IDMT  Association
“blog,”  reflect  a   significant   amount   of   demoralization   and
dissatisfaction  with  the   identification/conversion   process   and
separate competition during the CY05 cycle.   These  members  question
the credibility of their career leadership and  the  fairness  of  the
conversion process with respect  to  its  impact  on  their  promotion
opportunities.   We  are  concerned  the  IDMT   shortage   could   be
exacerbated if these individuals begin to wonder whether  they  should
remain in the Air Force, or if members who  are  being  recruited  for
this career field also opt out.  While  there  may  not  have  been  a
“legal  error”  in  the  identification,  conversion,   testing,   and
consideration processes, we believe it is  important,  given  the  Air
Force’s vital need for  these  specialized  individuals,  to  avoid  a
career-wide perception of  unfairness  with  the  promotion  cycle  in
question.  That the career leadership disseminated  wrong  information
in their briefings is indisputable, and the  conversion  process  does
not seem to have progressed to the  point  that  separate  competitive
groups were warranted for the  CY05  promotion  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  Force
relating to the APPLICANT be provided supplemental consideration for
promotion to the grade of technical sergeant  for  the  Control  Air
Force Specialty Code 4N0X1 for the 05E6 promotion cycle.

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  qualification  for  the
promotion.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 15 March 2006 under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Member
                 Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-02310 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jul 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 8 Aug 05.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Aug 05.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Aug 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 28 Nov 05.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAC, dated 3 Jan 06.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 27 Jan 06.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Feb 06.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Feb 06.




                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2005-02310




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 XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for the
Control Air Force Specialty Code 4N0X1 for the 05E6 promotion cycle.

      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 qualification for the promotion.





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency