RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02008
INDEX CODE: 131.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 29 DEC 2007
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The test scores from cycle 07E7 be removed from his records and
that he be allowed to retest.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He believes the results are unjust because the environmental
conditions interfered with his concentration. The classroom
atmosphere was so hot, heat could be felt in the adjoining hall
way, when the door was opened during the break from the Promotion
Fitness Examination (PFE) portion to the Specialty Knowledge Test
(SKT) portion, the classroom was emptied. During the test, his
answer sheet was riddled with spots from perspiration. The
environmental conditions were bad enough for him to request, the
next day, to install some sort of ventilation device to improve the
conditions.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant tested for cycle 07E7 on 5 Feb 07. He received an SKT
score of 49.00 and PFE score of 47.95. His overall score was
289.95 and the score required for promotion in his Air Force
Specialty Code (AFSC) was 301.26. This was the applicant’s first
time competing for promotion to Master Sergeant (MSgt).
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed this application and recommended denial.
They state if the applicant felt the environmental condition of the
classroom was too uncomfortable, he had the opportunity to voice
his concerns to the Test Examiner (TE) at the time of testing. AFI
36-2605, para 1.19.2., states “…All examinees must inform the TE of
any mental or physical condition that may prevent them from doing
their best or finishing testing.” Paragraph 3.3.2. further
instructs the TE to eliminate distracting influences in the
surrounding environment. To the extent possible, confirm all
examinees are comfortable and not fatigued, ill, or distressed. If
the examinee is affected by one of these conditions, excuse him/her
and reschedule testing for a more appropriate time. It is
ultimately the examinees responsibility to ensure she/he is fit to
test, either mentally or physically.
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB’s 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 13 Jul 07 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, 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.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issue involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
___________________________________________________________________
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-2007-02008 in Executive Session on 11 September 2007, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
Mr. Elwood C. Lewis III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Jun 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 Jul 07.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jul 07.
WAYNE R. GRACIE
Panel Chair
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 02579
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C, D, G and H. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends the applicants request to have his leave restored be granted. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants request...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03729
He has served over 20 years of Regular active service. DPPPWB’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. 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.
A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C. The Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated promotion ineligibility, because of weight, is the same as all other ineligibility conditions outlined in AFI 36-2502. DPPPWB stated the applicant tested 21 Feb 97 for promotion cycle 97E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98) and the PECD for this cycle was 31 Dec 96. Pursuant to the Board’s request, DPPPWB provided an unofficial copy...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02874
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicants military records are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AETC/DPSOE states they are unable to provide test results/score notice for cycle 02E7 as the applicant was never considered for promotion because he did not take the required Specialty Knowledge Test...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01133
Applicant was considered for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), and selected, by the 92A6 promotion cycle with a date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 October 1991. Subsequent to the applicant’s retirement from the Air Force on 1 January 1996, he was awarded the Defense Meritorious Service Medal (DMSM) for the period 2 March 1986 to 31 December 1990, for meritorious service, per Permanent Orders 310-01, dated 6 November 1997. As stated by AFPC/DPPPWB, had the Defense...
Applicant was considered for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), and selected, by the 92A6 promotion cycle with a date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 October 1991. Subsequent to the applicant’s retirement from the Air Force on 1 January 1996, he was awarded the Defense Meritorious Service Medal (DMSM) for the period 2 March 1986 to 31 December 1990, for meritorious service, per Permanent Orders 310-01, dated 6 November 1997. As stated by AFPC/DPPPWB, had the Defense...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03286
The applicant has tested two other times for promotion to E-7 and received an SKT score of 32.63 for cycle 01E7 and 44.32 for cycle 02E7. Since the WAPS was approved by the Secretary of the Air Force on 3 July 1968, over 50,000 tests have been manually scored and the results compared against the computer score. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02479
DPPPWB states that AFPC/DPAAD1 did not receive a request for the applicant to be released for Dorm Manager duties until 22 Jan 02. It is our opinion that since the applicant was performing Dorm Manager duties, as directed by his superiors, his records should be corrected to reflect that he was assigned the appropriate CAFSC at the time he was placed in the position and that he be considered SKT exempt for the 02E6 promotion cycle. It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental...
The applicant was non-weighable (could not be considered because he did not test) for the 96E6 cycle (testing months January - March 1996). The applicant was provided supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to the grade of TSgt by cycle 96E6 using his test scores from the cycle 97E6 (testing months January - March 1997). The applicant was provided supplemental promotion consideration for the 96E6 cycle using his test scores from the 97E6 cycle.