RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02950
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  22 Mar 07


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be directly promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt)  (E-
6) with a DOR of 1 Jul 04.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he reentered the Air Force on 1 Oct 02, his DOR  was  incorrectly
established as 15 Jun 02.  In accordance with  AFI  36-2604,  “Service
Dates and Dates of Rank,” and the DOR worksheet, his DOR  should  have
been 15 Jun 01.

He had previously requested a  testing  opportunity  during  the  03E6
cycle, but was denied by the  MPF  officer  in  charge  based  on  the
incorrect DOR of 15 Jun 02 that was in the system at  the  time.   The
03E6 testing cycle was Promotion Fitness Exam (PFE)  scores  only  for
the 1A7X1 Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC).

While processing into his current duty station, he  reviewed  the  DOR
computation sheet and realized that he was  correct  in  requesting  a
testing opportunity for cycle 03E6.  He requested the correction on  1
Sep  05.   At  this  point  he  was  provided  supplemental  promotion
consideration for the past three years using his 05E6 scores  for  the
PFE and Skills Knowledge Test (SKT).  He requested AFPC provide an AFI
reference for the formula they applied for his supplemental  promotion
consideration and was told it was governed by an internal process with
no established AFI guidance.

He believes being denied the opportunity to test during the 03E6 cycle
had a detrimental impact on his career.

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits six  attachments;  DOR
computation worksheet, a copy of AFI 36-2604, a copy of  the  Weighted
Airman Promotion System (WAPS) Eligibility Chart  as  of   3  May  03,
copies of his Enlisted Data Verification Records, dated 29 Aug 05  and
8 Sep 05, and a contacts list.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a prior service member who reentered active duty on 1
Oct 02.  His DOR was established as 15  Jun  02,  which  rendered  him
ineligible for  promotion  consideration  during  cycle  03E6  due  to
insufficient time  in  grade  (TIG).   On  18  Oct  05,  the  Enlisted
Accessions Branch at AFPC administratively corrected  the  applicant’s
DOR to reflect  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).  The applicant was also supplementally considered for cycle  04E6
since his weighted points  for  TIG  changed.   The  applicant  was  a
nonselect for both cycles.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s request to  test  for
cycle 03E6.  The applicant was provided fair and  equitable  promotion
consideration in accordance with existing policy  and  procedures  and
was  not   selected.    He   was   provided   supplemental   promotion
consideration using the same procedures afforded to others in  similar
situations.

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 an administrative
process, it has been a long standing policy, in effect since the first
promotion under the WAPS began on 1 Jun 70, to use the  test  score(s)
from the most current cycle in  providing  supplemental  consideration
for those earlier cycles.  The reason for using test scores  from  the
most current cycle for  previous  cycles  where  no  test  scores  are
available is these tests more closely mirror the Air  Force  knowledge
and processes, procedures, and equipment for  a  particular  specialty
that would have been measured by the available tests.

The current version of AFI  36-2605,  “Air  Force  Military  Personnel
Testing System,” paragraph A9.11 states, “Never administer an obsolete
test for supplemental promotion consideration.”  The established  AFPC
procedure for supplemental promotion consideration when  the  test  is
obsolete is as follows:  “When a member is competing for promotion for
more than one cycle, he or she takes only the  current  version(s)  of
the test and  the  test  results  are  applied  retroactively  to  the
applicable  cycle(s).   Airmen   authorized   supplemental   promotion
consideration that do not have test scores for  that  cycle  use  WAPS
test scores from the first testing cycle  following  the  supplemental
promotion cycle for which test scores are available.”

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
10 Nov 04 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 its 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-2005-
02950 in Executive Session on 21 December 2005, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
      Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member
      Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Sep 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 4 Nov 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Nov 05.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
                                   Panel Chair