RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02215
                                             INDEX CODE:  100.00
      XXXXXXX                           COUNSEL:  GARY R. MYERS
                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her promotion test to staff sergeant (SSgt) for  cycle  88A5  be  scored
and credited for promotion.

2.  She receive a retroactive promotion  from  1996  to  technical  sergeant
(TSgt) and receive back pay.

3.  She receive a retroactive promotion from 2001 to master sergeant  (MSgt)
and receive back pay.

4.  She be considered for promotion and selection to senior master  sergeant
(SMSgt).
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was not given access to study materials prior  to  retesting  for  staff
sergeant (SSgt) during cycle 88A5.  In April 1987, she tested for  promotion
to SSgt.  In June 1987, after being reassigned to Keesler AFB, MS,  she  was
told that she had to retest for promotion because she was  administered  the
wrong test.  At the time of her re-test, the Air Force  had  created  a  new
Professional Fitness Exam (PFE); however, she was never given access to  the
new study material before re-testing.  Her supervisor noted  on  her  Airman
Data Verification Record (DVR) that she was only required to  take  the  old
PFE.  When erroneous  information  is  noted  on  the  DVR,  a  new  DVR  is
generated reflecting the corrected information.  Due  to  an  administrative
error, a new DVR was never produced and her PFE score was  erroneously  used
to calculate her promotion points.

She was denied promotion  to  TSgt  in  1996  and  MSgt  in  2001  based  on
corruption in the Weighted Airman Promotion System  (WAPS).   In  1996,  she
was passed over for promotion to E-6.  She  missed  the  promotion  by  0.13
points and was  the  number  two  non-selected  airman  for  promotion.   In
addition, in 2001, she was passed over for promotion  to  E-7.   She  missed
the cutoff by 0.08 points and was the number  one  non-selected  airman  for
promotion.

After she retired, the Air Force Times published  an  article  titled  "WAPS
Cheating, it's more Widespread than you think."  After reading  the  article
she discovered between  1995  and  2000  individuals  in  her  career  field
(Personnel) had manipulated the testing system by  creating  a  database  of
questions administered during the promotion test.

Through a Freedom of Information Act  (FOIA)  request,  she  discovered  the
ringleader of the scandal was promoted to TSgt in 1995  and  MSgt  in  2000.
In addition, a number of individuals are currently  being  investigated  and
court-martialed in connection with the cheating scandal.

Her counsel believes she was unfairly prejudiced  on  two  occasions  during
her career.  First, the Air Force committed an administrative error when  it
administered her the wrong PFE.  Her original PFE  score  should  have  been
weighed in calculating her promotion points.   Secondly,  she  was  unfairly
prejudiced by corruption in the WAPS that caused her to be denied  promotion
to TSgt in 1996 and MSgt in 2001.  Given her competitive record,  she  would
have been selected for promotion and would  have  been  selected  for  SMSgt
prior to her retirement.

In support of the application, she submits a  statement  from  her  counsel;
copies of her Airman DVR(s); WAPS Score Notices; DD  Form  214,  Certificate
of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; letter for FOIA office; copies  of
her   enlisted   performance   reports;   certificates   of    commendation,
achievement,  recognition  and  appreciation;  her  awards  and  decorations
information and copies of her college degrees.

The complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the regular Air Force on 6  December  1983.  On  1
April 1990 (cycle 90B5) she was  promoted  to  SSgt.   On  1  February  1998
(cycle 97E6) she was promote to TSgt.  On 1 October 2002  (cycle  02E7)  she
was promoted to MSgt.  She was considered and nonselected for  promotion  to
SMSgt for cycles 05E8 and 06E8. On 1 October 2006 she  was  retired  in  the
grade of MSgt.

She served 22 years, 9 months and 25 days on active duty.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial.  DPPPWB  states  the  applicant's  contention
that she was unfairly prejudiced by corruption in the WAPS that led  to  her
being denied promotion to TSgt in 1996 and MSgt in 2001 is  incorrect.   The
individual she is  referring  to  was  in  her  same  career  field,  3S071;
however, he was not eligible to test for TSgt in  1996  since  he  had  been
selected in 1995.  He was also ineligible to test in 2001 for MSgt since  he
was selected in 2000.  Although it is true he was convicted of  cheating  by
obtaining, processing, and transmitting unauthorized test material,  he  was
not promotion eligible for the cycle  that  the  applicant  claims  she  was
denied promotion.  Therefore she was not displaced by the cheating  scandal.
 DPPPWB recommends the applicant's request  to  have  her  test  scored  and
credited for cycle 88A5 be time barred.  Test answer sheets for  cycle  88A5
no longer  exist.   The  applicant's  unreasonable  delay  has  also  caused
prejudice to the Air Force as relevant records have been  destroyed  or  are
no longer available, memories have  failed  and  witnesses  are  unavailable
since promotion files are only maintained  for  a  period  of  10  years  as
outlined in AFR 4-20, Table 36-12, Rule 29,  Records  Disposition  Schedule,
and test answer sheets at that time were only maintained  for  a  period  of
two years.  DPPPWB is unable to score the "noweighable" test  as  requested.
Ten years  is  generally  considered  an  adequate  period  to  resolve  any
promotion inquiries or concerns.  The applicant claims  she  was  not  given
access to study materials prior to retesting for cycle  88A5;  however,  the
Promotion Fitness Examination (PFE) guides were used for  a  period  of  two
years. Therefore, the study material she used to prepare  to  test  for  PFE
00035, revision 29 would have been the  same  for  PFE  00035  revision  28.
During the timeframe in question (cycle 88A5), there  were  two  cycles  per
year for SSgt (A and B cycle).  Her date of  rank  (DOR)  to  senior  airman
determined which cycle she  was  eligible  for  testing/consideration.   The
test questions were different from  cycle  A  to  cycle  B,  but  the  study
reference material was the  same,  not  to  mention  that  the  study  guide
remained the same for two  years.   Therefore  when  she  retested  she  was
actually given an advantage (extra study time) over those  who  only  tested
once.  DPPPWB is unable to  provide  statistics  concerning  the  number  of
individuals who took the wrong test during that time  frame;  however  there
are between 700-1000 each  year  that  fall  into  this  category  nowadays.
DPPPWB finds no error or injustice occurred when the applicant was  required
to retest after it  was  discovered  that  she  took  the  wrong  test.   In
addition, Air Force policy does not allow for  automatic  promotion  as  the
applicant is requesting to SMSgt considering  she  was  never  selected  for
promotion to this grade.

The AFPC/DPPPWB 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  17
October 2007, for review and comment 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.  Her contentions in this  regard  are  duly
noted;  however,  in  our  opinion,  the  Air  Force   office   of   primary
responsibility has adequately addressed these  contentions  and  we  are  in
agreement with their assessment  of  her  case.   Therefore,  we  adopt  its
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that she has not been  the  victim
of an error or injustice in this  matter.   In  the  absence  of  persuasive
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 issues 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  Docket  Number  BC-2007-02215
in Executive Session on 7 January 2008 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Cathlynn B. Novel, Panel Chair
            Ms.  Jan Mulligan, Member
            Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member

The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2007-
02215 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Jul 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 11 Oct 07.
      Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Oct 07.




      CATHLYNN B. NOVEL
      Panel Chair