RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02799
            INDEX CODE:  100.05  131.00
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  13 Mar 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His promotion to master sergeant (MSgt) in cycle  05E7  be  reinstated
or, in the alternative, he be allowed to retest  for  the  05E7  cycle
promotion fitness examination  (PFE)  only  and  receive  supplemental
promotion consideration.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He spent 16 years serving in the  2T1X1,  Vehicle  Operator/Dispatcher
Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC).   He  was  offered  the  position  of
noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC)  of  Whiteman’s  First  Term
Airmen Center (FTAC), AFSC 9F000, and began working in  that  position
in Sep 03.  He was serving in the capacity of an FTAC NCOIC, 9F000, in
the Calendar Year 2004 (CY04).  Five  attempts  by  his  superiors  to
change his AFSC had failed in  the  course  of  one  year.   He  began
preparing for the Weighted Airman  Promotion  Data  System  (WAPS)  by
studying the PFE for his  new  AFSC,  but  his  Report  of  Individual
Personnel (RIP) in Jan 05 still listed him  in  his  old  2T1X1  AFSC.
Despite his questioning, he was instructed to  study  for  this  AFSC.
From 3 Jan to 9 Mar 04, he split his study time to  prepare  for  both
the specialty knowledge test (SKT) and the PFE.   When  he  tested  on
10 Mar 05, he believed he was testing for the proper  AFSC,  based  on
what he had been told.  If he had not had to split his study time over
two AFSCs, his overall score would have been higher and he would  have
been promoted to the grade of MSgt in the FTAC AFSC.  He is not trying
to  game  the  system;  having  his  promotion  to  MSgt  pulled   was
humiliating.

The 509th Mission Support Group (509 MSG) commander at  Whiteman  AFB,
MO, provides a statement confirming the  personnel  system  failed  to
update the applicant’s  record  with  his  special  duty  AFSC.   Five
attempts to update the system failed.  As a result, the applicant held
the 2T171 AFSC as of the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD)  and
tested in that AFSC for the 05E7 cycle.  He confirms the applicant did
question the information contained in his test notification and on all
accounts was instructed to proceed and test as a 2T.  The  applicant’s
supervisor describes the chain of events in attempting to  change  and
verify  the  applicant’s  AFSC  and   contends   the   applicant   was
disadvantaged by not having 12 months  of  hands-on  experience  as  a
2T171.  Also submitted are Emails between other individuals pertaining
to efforts to  change  the  applicant’s  AFSC  and  what  experts  had
advised.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 20 Jul  87  and  is
currently serving in the grade of technical  sergeant  (TSgt)  with  a
date of rank (DOR) of 1 Apr 01.  The military  personnel  data  system
(MilPDS) reflects his primary AFSC (PAFSC) is 9F000, NCOIC FTAC, as of
17 Mar 04.  Prior to that, his  AFSC  was  2T171,  Vehicle  Operations
Supervisor.

A 14 Dec 04 Notification of  WAPS  Promotion  Testing  Cycle  -  05E7,
informed the applicant was scheduled for promotion testing  on  10 Mar
05.  His AFSC was listed as 2T171.  He was not  eligible  for  an  SKT
exemption.

On 10 Mar 05, the applicant tested in AFSC 2T1X1 based on a 14 Dec  04
WAPS promotion testing notification printout and data reflected in the
MilPDS and the WAPS.  He  was  selected  for  promotion  to  MSgt  and
received a promotion sequence number (PSN)  of 2350.0, which  has  not
yet been incremented.  The applicant’s projected date of rank (DOR) to
MSgt would have been 1 Dec 05.  However, after coordination  with  the
2T171 and 9F000 functional managers, it was determined  the  applicant
was a 9F000 as of the PECD (31 Dec 04 for cycle 05E7).  His  promotion
file was corrected and he was supplementally considered in  the  9F000
career field, which resulted in his being a nonselect for  MSgt.   The
score required for selection to MSgt in the 9F000 AFSC was 362.30.

[Note:  HQ AFPC/DPPPWB informally advised the AFBCMR Staff  via  Email
that the 9F AFSC tested PFE only; the 2T AFSC tested both PFE and SKT.
 The applicant’s PFE score was doubled for a total  score  of  352.12;
however, the cutoff score for selection to MSgt in the 9F career field
was 362.30.  The cutoff score for selection to MSgt in the 2T AFSC was
323.75.  HQ AFPC/DPPPWB also advised that during the 2005  cycle,  818
people took the wrong test--164 of whom were for 05E7.]

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Members compete for promotion in the AFSC  they  hold  at  the
PECD.  Although the system had not been updated to  correctly  reflect
his AFSC as 9F000, the applicant himself admits he was serving in  the
capacity of an FTAC NCOIC, 9F000, during CY04.  It is  ultimately  the
applicant’s responsibility to know his eligibility status,  the  study
references required, how he will be considered (with both the PFE  and
SKT or the PFE only), and when he will test.  The  Enlisted  Promotion
Program Fact Sheet, as well as  AFI  36-2502,  paragraph  2.3.,  state
airmen compete and test in the AFSC held on the  PECD.  Since  members
compete for promotion by AFSC, everyone in an AFSC is required to take
the same version of the test.  There are occasional instances  were  a
member takes a different version because the member was confused about
the Control AFSC due to retraining, restructure of an AFSC, etc.,  or,
in the applicant’s case, the system  had  not  been  updated.  When  a
member takes  a  different  version  than  the  others  competing  for
promotion in his/her AFSC,  the  incorrect  test  version  is  equated
through a scientific process which allows comparison of scores on  two
different test versions.  It  accounts  for  the  difference  in  test
difficulty and computes what a member’s score would have been if  they
had taken the correct version.  AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program,
para. 2.3.2.3.,  and  AFCSM  36-699,  Personnel  Data  Systems,  para.
5.4.5.4.1.7.7., indicate promotion selections  are  “tentative”  until
data verification is complete.  There are no provisions for  a  person
who has been erroneously selected to retain the promotion based solely
on notification.   Since  promotions  are  based  on  limited  quotas,
allowing retention of an erroneous promotion  precludes  promotion  of
another who has legitimately earned it.  The action taken in this case
was properly handled and the applicant has already been supplementally
considered for promotion in his correct  AFSC  using  the  process  of
equating.  Therefore, denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant asserts the coordination with the 2T and  9F  functional
managers did not occur until after line numbers were released  in  Jun
05.  By that time, his unit’s  commander’s  support  staff  (CSS)  had
successfully changed his position number and primary AFSC  in  MilPDS.
He acted responsibility and with integrity regarding  his  eligibility
status, study references required, how he  would  be  considered,  and
when he would test.  His WAPS testing RIP clearly shows he held the 2T
AFSC on PECD 31 Dec 04.  He identified  this  error  but,  again,  was
instructed to test as listed.  All the other 9F000s studied only their
PFE before they walked into the testing room.  He was forced to  study
two sources of  information,  PFE  and  five  volumes  of  the  career
development courses (CDC) for the 2T career field.  While  AFPC/DPPPWB
asserts restoring his promotion would unfair to other  individuals  in
the 9F AFSC who had higher scores than his, their  advisory  does  not
discuss how unfair the situation is to him.

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

_________________________________________________________________

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 to warrant partial relief.   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.  The applicant was not eligible for an  SKT  waiver  in  the  2T
AFSC, while the 9F career field tested only in the PFE for cycle 05E7.
 However, after data verification confirmed he was in  the  9F  career
field on the PECD, the applicant was given supplemental  consideration
using a method AFPC calls equating, which is in accordance with  their
established procedures.   However,  his  score  was  insufficient  for
selection for promotion and, as a result, his promotion selection  was
revoked.   We  allow  that  the  AFI  clearly  states  that  promotion
selections are tentative until data verification  is  completed,  that
members  are  responsible  for   knowing   their   status   and   test
consideration, and that the applicant knew he was in the 9F000 AFSC on
the PECD and when he tested.   On  the  other  hand,  the  applicant’s
supporting statements indicate efforts had been made to have  his  new
AFSC updated and, instead of focusing only on the PFE  like  other  9F
individuals in that cycle, he had to study both the  PFE  and  the  2T
SKT.  The Air Force and the applicant each make valid  arguments,  and
we are conflicted about fully conceding either  side’s  position.   We
are reluctant to restore the applicant’s selection  for  promotion  to
MSgt  outright,  but  we  would  be  willing  to  afford  him  another
opportunity to be selected for promotion  in  cycle  05E7  in  the  9F
career field.  We therefore  recommend  he  be  provided  supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of MSgt in the 9F000 AFSC for
cycle 05E7 by using the PFE score he earns  for  cycle  06E7  and,  if
sufficient for selection for promotion in cycle 05E7, he  be  promoted
to the grade of master sergeant effective and with a date of  rank  of
1 December 2005.

_________________________________________________________________

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 master sergeant in  the  9F000  Air  Force
Specialty  Code  for  cycle  05E7  using   his   promotion   fitness
examination (PFE) score from promotion cycle 06E7 and,  if  selected
for promotion in cycle 05E7, he be promoted to the grade  of  master
sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 1 December 2005.

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 7 February 2006 under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2005-02799 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Sep 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 19 Sep 05.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Sep 05.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Oct 05.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2005-02799




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      , be provided supplemental consideration for
promotion to the grade of master sergeant in the 9F000 Air Force
Specialty Code for cycle 05E7 using his promotion fitness
examination (PFE) score from promotion cycle 06E7 and, if selected
for promotion in cycle 05E7, he be promoted to the grade of master
sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 1 December 2005.

      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