RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03434
            INDEX CODE:  131.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 12 MAY 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the grade of senior master  sergeant  (E-8)  in  the  05E8
promotion cycle.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was notified of his nonselection for promotion to E-8 and was the  number
one non-selectee in his  Air  Force  Specialty  (AFS).   Shortly  after  the
promotion release it was discovered there was an error  in  the  scoring  of
several members who were initially selected for promotion.  There were  nine
members attending the First Sergeant Academy who were scored  in  their  old
AFS who were erroneously promoted.  Seven of these members lost  their  line
numbers and the number one non-selects in their  career  fields  were  given
the appropriate line numbers for promotion.

MSgt K---, a member of his AFS (4Y0X0), was  attending  the  First  Sergeant
Academy and her record was scored in the 4Y0X0 career field.   AFI  36-2101,
Table 3.9, note 2, states "CAFSC effective date  for  retraining  through  a
formal school (including special duty) is:

      a. The date departed current duty station PCS or PCA.

      b. Date departed TDY to accomplish required training  (either  enroute
to new duty station or when returning to present duty station).

      c. Date assigned duty if there is not  a  PCS  or  PCA.  Don't  change
CAFSC prior to date of departure.

      d. The intent of the CAFSC changing as a result of  retraining  is  to
fairly and accurately account for the individual  against  the  right  AFSC.
If the individual is departing for training, but is projected to  return  to
the same location and to be used (worked) in the old AFSC,  then  the  CAFSC
is not changed until the individual is PCS or PCA to  the  new  unit  unless
Example 1/2 in AFI 36-2101, page 35 applies.

Therefore, she should have been scored  by  the  8F000  panel.   It  is  the
applicant's understanding that MSgt K--- returned to her duty  station  upon
graduation from the First Sergeant Academy and while she  did  work  in  her
old AFSC, she also returned to out-process the base (less than 30 days)  and
had to report to Ramstein Air Base, GE.   These  actions  do  not  meet  the
intent of AFI 36-2101, Table 3.9, Note 2, Example 1/2.

Based on the above,  applicant  believes  her  promotion  should  have  been
negated and she should have met the supplemental promotion  board  with  the
other affected  members  and  had  her  records  scored  against  the  First
Sergeant panel.  This would have resulted in his promotion  to  E-8  in  the
4Y0X0 AFSC as the number-one non-select in his career field.  Based  on  the
conflicting information between AFI 36-2113, The First  Sergeant,  paragraph
4.3 and the information contained in AFI 36-2101 and the events  surrounding
the promotion board, applicants  requests  favorable  consideration  of  his
appeal.

In support of his request, applicant provided  his  WAPS  score  sheet,  and
excerpts from AFI 36-2101, and AFI 36-2113.  His complete  submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  16
Mar 84.   He  has  been  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  master
sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank  of  1
Apr 02.  He was considered and not selected for promotion to  the  grade  of
senior master sergeant  during  the  05E8  promotion  cycle.   He  has  been
considered  for  promotion  during  the  06E8  cycle,  selections  will   be
announced in March 2006.

On 23 Jun 05, the  Board  considered  and  granted  the  requests  of  eight
individuals previously selected for  promotion  to  Senior  Master  Sergeant
during promotion cycle 05E8 whose selections were removed.   In  each  case,
upon the promotion eligibility cutoff  date  (PECD)  the  applicants'  CAFSC
reflected their AFSC held prior to their approved  special  duty  assignment
as First Sergeants.  They were  selected  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
senior master sergeant; however, during promotion data verification  it  was
determined that they  competed  in  their  former  CAFSCs  and  should  have
competed in CAFSC 8F000 (First Sergeant).  An error existed due to the  fact
that in  accordance  with  AFI  36-2113,  the  instruction  governing  First
Sergeants, those attending the First Sergeant Academy are  not  awarded  the
8F000 CAFSC  until  successful  completion  of  the  course.   However,  the
applicable rule outlined in AFI  36-2101,  Classifying  Military  Personnel,
dictated in each case that the CAFSC should have  been  awarded  upon  their
departure to attend the First Sergeant Academy.  Action has  been  taken  to
change AFI 36-2113 to correct the conflict.  Each  individual's  record  was
corrected, they were provided supplemental promotion consideration, and  not
selected for promotion in the 8F000 CAFSC.  As a result of  the  removal  of
their promotion selection, a promotion sequence number was assigned  to  the
number-one non-select in each applicable AFS.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAC recommends denial.  DPAC states the promotion eligibility  cut-off
date (PECD) for the 05E8 cycle was 30 Sep 04.  MSgt K--- attended the  First
Sergeant Academy course starting 9 Sep 04 and graduated 6 Oct 04.  Her  date
of departure was prior to the PECD.  Although the applicant  identifies  one
of the CAFSC rules outlined in  the  AFI  he  does  not  include  the  other
variations and scenarios that allow for a different  CAFSC  effective  date.
Although AFI 36-2101 states the CAFSC is changed to the retraining  AFSC  on
the date of departure for TDY  to  accomplish  required  training,  it  also
provides an alternative date based on  specific  situations  and  scenarios.
The CAFSC effective date can also be the date assigned duty if there is  not
a permanent change of station or assignment, or if  the  individual  departs
for training but is projected to return to the same location and  be  worked
in the old AFSC.  In the latter case, the CAFSC would not be  changed  until
the individual changes station  or  assignment  to  a  new  unit.   In  this
specific instance, the information recorded in MilPDS reveals  she  returned
to the losing unit and was used as a 4Y0X1 following her graduation and  was
not assigned to a First Sergeant position until 11 Nov 04, which is  clearly
after the PECD.  Therefore, the CAFSC  effective  date  would  be  the  date
assigned  duty--11  Nov  04.   While  AFI  36-2113  is  not  the   governing
instruction, the error between the two instructions was noted  and  the  AFI
is being revised.  From a classification perspective there is  no  error  to
correct.  Both members were considered in the correct CAFSC  using  existing
procedures.  The DPPAC evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial.  DPPPWB states MSgt  K---  departed  for  the
First Sergeant Academy on 9 Sep 04 and graduated on 6 Oct 04;  however,  she
returned to her losing unit and was  used  as  a  4Y0X1  until  11  Nov  04.
Enlisted Promotions Branch at  AFPC  received  a  letter  from  MSgt  K---'s
commander confirming this.  All policies and procedures  were  followed  and
both the applicant and  MSgt  in  question  were  correctly  considered  for
promotion during cycle 05E8.  The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded stating that the advisory points out that  the  AFI  had
errors  and  will  be  updated  to  further  clarify  accepted  policy   and
procedures.  MSgt K--- was not projected to return  to  the  same  location,
wearing a "distinguish diamond" to be used and/or  work  in  her  old  AFSC.
The intent when she "proudly" sewed on her First Sergeant diamond was to  be
a "First Sergeant" Who had an assignment to Ramstein AB, GE, not to go  back
to her old career field to work.  DPPPWB uses the  same  argument  as  DPPAC
stating MSgt K--- departed for training but was projected  to  work  in  her
old career field, but his goes against the  intent  of  AFI  36-2101,  Table
3.9, Note, Example 2.  If she returned to her duty station with  the  intent
to work instead of out-processing from the base, then she would have  had  a
cancelled  assignment  or  a  report  not  later  than  date  extension   to
accommodate her need to work in her old career field.  She and every one  of
the First Sergeants who graduated from the First  Sergeant  Academy  had  an
assignment with the exception of some returning to  their  duty  station  to
out-process.

His complete response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the  case;  however,  we  agree
with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Forces  office  of  primary
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the  basis  for  our  conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an  error  or  injustice.   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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2005-
03434 in Executive Session on 5 Apr 06, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
      Mr. Robert H. Altman, Member
      Ms. Marcia Jane Bachman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Nov 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAC, dated 7 Dec 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, DPPPWB, dated 14 Dec 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Dec 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Jan 06.




                                   CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                   Panel Chair