RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00400
INDEX CODE: 131.05
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 12 AUG 2008
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His date of rank (DOR) for promotion to staff sergeant (SSgt) be
effective in 2005 rather than 1 Oct 2006.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) test results were
unjustly withheld from him for the 05E5 promotion cycle in 2005.
He tested in 2004, 2005, and 2006. Although, he was fully
qualified for promotion before his WAPS test in 2005, the Air Force
Personnel Center (AFPC) refused to release his test results. He
believes this was due to a clerical error committed by the
commander support staff (CSS). He immediately contacted his
current chain of command as soon as he became aware of the problem
in Aug 05, however, it was not resolved.
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of the email
correspondence explaining the details and status of the situation.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27 Mar 01 for a
period of six years. He initially started training in the 1N3XX
(Cryptologic Linguist) career field and was reclassified in the
1N6X1 (Electronic System Security Assessment) career field due to
course failure. Applicant completed requirement for award of the 5-
skill level on 3 Jun 05. He was considered and selected for
promotion to SSgt during cycle 06E5, with an effective date and DOR
of 1 Oct 06.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed this application and recommended denial.
Based on applicant’s DOR to Senior Airman (SrA), he was eligible
for promotion consideration to SSgt for cycle 04E5; however, he did
not possess the required 5 skill level by the promotion eligibility
cutoff date (31 Mar 04) in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Table 2.1,
Rule 2. He was erroneously granted a skill level waiver by his
commander, but rendered a nonselect for cycle 04E5.
Military personnel flights (MPFs) received testing products for
cycle 05E5 in the Apr/May timeframe notifying them of member
eligibility status. The applicant’s name appeared on a roster
reflecting that he was in training status code (TSC) “F” for this
cycle as he still had not attained the required 5 skill level by
the Promotion Effective Cutoff Date (PECD) 31 Mar 05, and required
an approved skill level waiver by his commander to be considered
for promotion. Since applicant had been reclassified into a new
AFSC for CDC failure, as well as granted a skill level waiver for
the previous cycle (04E5), he was not eligible for a skill level
waiver for cycle 05E5 IAW ALPERSCOM/8106 message (Primary AFSC
Skill Level Waiver Instructions for Cycle 05E5).
A complete copy of the 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 4 May 2007 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office (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. 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, in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Table 2.1, Rule 2
and ALPERSCOM/8106 message he did not possess the required 5-skill
level by the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD) of 31 Mar 04,
in order to be considered during the 05E5 promotion cycle.
Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air
Force 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-2007-00400 in Executive Session on 26 June 2007, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Vice Chair
Mr. Jeffery R. Shelton, Member
Ms. Dee R. Reardon, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Dec 06, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 10 Apr 07.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 May 07.
PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00405
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. 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. He did not possess the skill level required, nor did he receive a skill...
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant’s military personnel records reflects that the applicant, a former United States Air Force Academy cadet, was ordered to extended active duty on 1 Jun 94. The applicant erroneously tested for promotion to staff sergeant for the 95E5 cycle on 8 May 95.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) . Current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36-2502, Table 2.2, Rule 5 , Note 2) dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close out date of the decoration must be on or before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD), and the date of the DECOR-6, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP) must be...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-3806
Current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36- 2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 2.2, Rule 5, Note 2) dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the closeout date of the decoration must be on or before the PECD, and the date of the Décor 6 must be before the date of the selections for the cycle in question. The applicant provides no documentation (such as e-mail traffic or letters from his chain of command) to prove that he aggressively pursued the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02799
_________________________________________________________________ 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. 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. We therefore recommend he be provided...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03028 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) to SSgt (E-5) be corrected from 29 Feb 00 to 2 Nov 97, his DOR when he served in the Air National Guard (ANG); his extended active duty (EAD) date reflect 2 Mar 99 vice 29 Feb 00, and his Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) tests...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01208
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic on 21 November 1991 and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant. As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01741
The applicant’s performance reports and numerous awards are provided at Exhibit B. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advises that, based on the applicant’s current and DOR of 9 Apr 03 for airman, the earliest cycle he would be eligible for promotion consideration to SSgt would be 07E5. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02310
Not every IDMT-qualified member was identified, mostly because they were not in an IDMT position. Only those individuals assigned to an IDMT 4N0X1C CAFSC position at the time of the conversion were considered for promotion as an IDMT in the CY05 cycle. As to whether some individuals were incorrectly promoted because they were “lucky” enough to be identified in the wrong CAFSC, promotion selections are “tentative pending verification by the MPF” (AFI 36-2502) and airmen are not “to...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02683
Only those individuals assigned to an IDMT 4N0X1C CAFSC position at the time of the conversion were considered for promotion as an IDMT in the CY05 cycle. As to whether some individuals were incorrectly promoted because they were “lucky” enough to be identified in the wrong CAFSC, promotion selections are “tentative pending verification by the MPF” (AFI 36-2502) and airmen are not “to assume the grade when data verification discovers missing or erroneous data.” Therefore, if an IDMT serving...