RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00405
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  12 August 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His promotion eligibility be reviewed for cycle 02E5.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Upon entry to USAF active duty in February 2002, he  was  informed  he
was  ineligible  for  promotion  testing  due  to   upgrade   training
requirements.  He was prior Navy enlisted and entered USAF active duty
as a senior airman, E-4, 3-Level.  He recently discovered  a  coworker
entered under identical circumstances and was granted  a  skill  level
waiver.  At the time of his entry to active duty, his  unit  education
manager and the servicing Military Personnel Flight (MPF) informed him
there was no skill-level waiver.  He was promoted  to  E-5  after  his
first eligible testing date, scoring the second highest score  in  his
AFSC; therefore, he believes he would have promoted to E-5 had he been
allowed to test in  2002,  which  would  subsequently  have  made  him
eligible to test for technical sergeant in 2005.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a portion of AFI 36-2502.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant entered active duty on 7  February  2002  in  the  grade  of
senior airman.  He had prior service in the Navy.  It  was  determined
that his date of rank to senior airman was 14 November 1997, which  in
itself,  made  him  eligible  for  promotion  consideration  to  staff
sergeant for cycle 02E5.  However, he did not possess the  required  5
skill level in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Table 2.1, Rule 2.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB states that the minimum  basic  eligibility  criteria  for
promotion to staff sergeant is six months time-in-grade  as  a  senior
airman, three years time-in-service, a  Primary  Air  Force  Specialty
Code (PAFSC) at the 5-skill  level,  and  a  recommendation  from  the
commander.  The applicant was ineligible for  promotion  consideration
to staff sergeant for cycle 02E5 because he did not possess a PAFSC at
the 5-skill level.  In accordance with AFI 36-2502,  Airman  Promotion
Program, Table 2.1, Rule 2, dated 6 August 2002, a member must possess
a PAFSC at the 5-skill level by the respective  Promotion  Eligibility
Cutoff Date (PECD) for the cycle.  The PECD  for  cycle  02E5  was  31
March 2002.  The applicant did not obtain his 5-skill  level  until  1
July 2003.

The applicant was ineligible for promotion consideration during  cycle
03E5 due to a suspended reduction in rank effective January 2003.   He
was considered and selected for promotion  to  staff  sergeant  during
cycle 04E5.  He received PSN 180 which incremented 1 September 2004.

MPFs received testing products in the  February/March  2002  timeframe
notifying them of member eligibility  status.   The  applicant’s  name
would have been on a roster notifying them that he was ineligible  due
to insufficient skill level.  The unit commander at  that  time  could
have approved a skill level waiver, but obviously  made  a  conscience
decision not to.  MPFs also received a message regarding  skill  level
waiver instruction for cycle  02E5,  and  MPFM  02-14  (Prior  Service
Promotion Fact Sheet,  20  February  2002)  was  posted  on  the  AFPC
Enlisted Promotion website.  They have no way of knowing  whether  the
applicant’s commander would have approved a  skill  level  waiver  for
cycle 02E5, especially since he had only been on active duty  52  days
as of the PECD.  Moreover, had he been granted a skill  level  waiver,
there is no way of knowing whether the applicant  would  have  been  a
select as he would have been on active duty only three  months  before
testing.  In his mentioning that he had the second  highest  score  in
his AFSC when he tested for cycle 04E5; they indicate that he had been
on active duty and able to study for over  two  years  by  that  time.
Therefore, they recommend denial of the applicant’s request.   He  did
not possess the skill level required, nor did he receive a skill level
waiver from his commander.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 10 March 2006, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within  30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  We  note,
the applicant was ineligible  for  promotion  consideration  to  staff
sergeant for cycle 02E5 because he does not possess a PAFSC at the  5-
skill level.  We also note, the unit commander at that time could have
approved a  skill  level  waiver,  but  obviously  made  a  conscience
decision not to.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no 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 19 April 2006, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member



The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2006-00405 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 06, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 28 Feb 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Mar 06.




                             CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                             Panel Chair