RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03655
            INDEX CODE:  131.00
            COUNSEL:  None
            HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: Jun 01, 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be granted supplemental promotion consideration for  the  06E7  promotion
cycle.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not provided all the  study  reference  materials  for  his  weighted
airman promotion system (WAPS) testing.

His career suffered due to having to appeal for 352 days to get an  enlisted
performance report (EPR) removed from his records by the Evaluation  Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB).

In support of his request,  the  applicant  provided  a  copy  of  the  ERAB
decision, a copy of the ERAB appeal package, e-mail traffic between  himself
and the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC), and his WAPS score notice.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of  technical
sergeant (TSgt).  The applicant contested his referral EPR which  closed-out
19 Aug 05.  The ERAB granted the applicant’s request to  remove  the  report
and had it replaced with a corrected report.

AFPC/DPPPWM informed the applicant’s military personnel flight (MPF)  on  15
Aug 06 the applicant would be  given  supplemental  promotion  consideration
for cycle 06E7 due to a change of his EPR history.  The notification  stated
the  applicant  would  be  required  to  test  on  the   promotion   fitness
examination (PFE) and specialty knowledge test (SKT) in the  2A6X1A  (manned
aerospace maintenance) Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC).

The applicant and his commander were notified of the  promotion  eligibility
status  on  16 Aug 06 by the  MPF.  The  applicant e-mailed the  MPF  asking
if he would be given  60  days  to  study  from  the  time  his  new  career
development course (volumes) (CDCs) were issued to him.   The  MPF  informed
the applicant he would get 60-days study time and that the time  started  16
Aug 06, making his test date 16 Oct 06.

The applicant’s supplemental promotion score was 320.07. The  required  cut-
off score for promotion was 320.17.

A resume of the applicant’s enlisted performance reports (EPRs) follows:

     Closeout Date                      Overall Rating

           24 Jan 95                                     5
       24 Jan 96                        5
       24 Jan 97                        5
           24 Jan 98                         5
           24 Jan 99                         5
           24 Jan 00                         5
           24 Jan 01                         5
           24 Jan 02                         5
           24 Jan 03                         5
           24 Jan 04                         5
           24 Jan 05                         5
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial.  The  applicant  acknowledged  receipt  of  a
complete set of WAPS material on 13 Oct 05 (a year before  his  test  date).
The receipt also states  that  it  was  the  applicant’s  responsibility  to
review the WAPS catalog to ensure he had the current  WAPS  study  reference
material and to maintain the material until it was superseded or  no  longer
needed.  General guidance in the WAPS catalog states  that  ultimately,  the
responsibility for obtaining the required  study  reference  material  rests
with the eligible member.

The applicant provides no  evidence  or  supporting  documentation  that  he
elevated his concerns about study reference material until he  became  aware
that he missed selection by less than one point.  Based on  the  removal  of
his referral EPR, he was provided supplemental  promotion  consideration  in
accordance with policies  and  procedures  provided  to  others  in  similar
circumstances.

The complete evaluation of AFPC/DPPPWB, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The basis for his complaint was not  solely  based  upon  the  fact  of  not
having study material for 60 days but the appeals, redresses,  and  stresses
put upon him and his family. Pursuing every avenue  to  get  his  impeccable
military records corrected is the reason for the application.

He filed an Inspector General complaint only to be turned away;  letters  to
senators only for them to be answered in normal Air Force jargon; and  filed
an Article 138 against his former commander and  so  on.   The  evidence  he
supplied to all avenues concerning the wrong-doings was so  evident  and  in
black and white.  If  someone  would  only  investigate  further,  it  would
substantiate the wrong-doings and cover-ups at Luke AFB from an  unfortunate
suicide.

He only wants what he believes he deserves and earned, that in  his  opinion
is a promotion.  He studied for this promotion but the fact  of  the  matter
is after 352 days of appeals, rebuttals  and  seeing  everyone  turning  him
away, he was physically and emotionally exhausted.   AFPAM  36-2241,  Volume
1, Chapter 1, states, “that time management is  key  to  academic  success.”
Sixty (60) days of notification to review over 1,000  pages  of  information
is not fair when he normally starts studying at least 4  months  before  the
testing cycle begins.  His past test scores  are  indicative  of  what  he’s
capable of in the right frame of mind and his record is impeccable.

The applicant’s complete 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.  Although  it  appears  the  applicant  was
provided supplemental promotion consideration in accordance with  prevailing
policy,  a  majority  of  the  Board  believes  the  circumstances  in   the
applicant’s case justify a measure  of  relief  beyond  what  has  otherwise
already been provided.  The applicant is  seeking  another  opportunity  for
supplemental  promotion  consideration.   However,   after   reviewing   the
circumstances  which  led   to   the   applicant’s   previous   supplemental
consideration, a majority of the Board believes there were  extenuating  and
unusual factors that justify a greater degree of relief.  A majority of  the
Board believes the applicant was placed in an unfair position by  having  to
devote a large amount of time contesting an undeserved referral  EPR,  which
suggested he was personally responsible for the tragic suicidal death  of  a
co-worker.  Consequently, a majority of the  Board  believes  the  applicant
was placed under an extraordinary amount of stress  and  blame  for  actions
that were beyond his control.  This is supported by  sworn  statements  from
several of his superiors.  Further, as the applicant  contends,  a  majority
of the Board noted that his SKT scores rose each testing  cycle  other  than
the period covered by the erroneous referral report.  In view of the  above,
a majority of the Board believes that  substantial  doubt  has  been  raised
regarding the impact of the erroneous actions taken against  the  applicant.
As such, a majority of the Board believes that any doubt should be  resolved
in favor of the applicant  and  that  as  an  exception  to  policy,  he  be
promoted directly to the grade of master  sergeant  as  if  selected  during
cycle 06E7.  Therefore, a majority of the Board recommends that his  records
be corrected as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The  pertinent  military  records  of  the  Department  of  the  Air   Force
pertaining to APPLICANT, be corrected to  show  that  he  was  selected  for
promotion to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) during  the  06E7  promotion
cycle and that he be promoted with a date of rank and effective  date  of  1
July 2007.

If  AFPC  discovers  any  adverse  factors  during  or  subsequent  to   the
applicant’s promotion 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  Docket  Number  BC-2006-03655
in Executive Session on 15 March 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
     Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
     Ms. Maureen B. Higgins, Member





By majority vote, the Board voted to correct the  records,  as  recommended.
Mr. Parker voted to deny but does not desire to submit  a  minority  report.
The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Nov 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 3 Jan 07.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jan 07.
      Exhibit D.  Applicant’s Response, dated 14 Feb 07.



                                        CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                        Panel Chair



      AFBCMR BC-2006-03655






      MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF


            Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States
      Code and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance
      with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air
      Force Board for Correction of Military Records is announced, and it is
      directed that:


            The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
      Force relating to XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that he was selected
      for promotion to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) during the 06E7
      promotion cycle, and that he be promoted with a date of rank and
      effective date of 1 July 2007.


            If the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) discovers any adverse
      factors during or subsequent to the applicant’s promotion 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