RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00167
INDEX CODE: 131.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be given supplemental promotion consideration for the 98E7 promotion
cycle and entitlement to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He believes that he should have been promoted to master sergeant (MSgt)
while assigned outside his career field for six years (Jul 95 to Jul 01).
He was assigned outside his career field without authorization, approval,
and/or a waiver in accordance with AFI 36-2101, Classifying Military
Personnel and the Personnel Services Delivery Handbook.
As a result, he believes he was unfairly placed at a disadvantage that
severely affected his chances to excel and be promoted to MSgt.
He questioned his assignment initially and for six years tried to get
reassigned within his old flight but was always told there was not a
position available.
He only recently discovered that he could request a review and update of
his military records.
In support of his request, the applicant provided statements in his own
behalf, copies of his enlisted performance reports (EPRs) from 1995 to
2000, and a Stripes for Exceptional Performers (STEP) nomination package.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_______________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant served for a period of 20 years and 29 days and was retired
on 30 Jun 01.
The applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty, reflects he held the Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 2W171,
Aircraft Armament Systems for 20 years.
_______________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPAA recommends denial. A review of each of his EPRs identifies
duties relating to the 2W1 AFSC, Aircraft Armament Systems. Although the
applicant’s performance reports show he worked in the 2W0 career field
(Munitions Systems in Munitions Control), he was still performing 2W1
duties. This is no different than 2W1 personnel working in the Wing
Operations Center worldwide or 2W1s performing as a Weapons Safety Manager.
Working with Standard, Tank, Rack, Adapter, Pylon and Package (STRAPP)
assets are referenced in each of his EPRs; these are the primary equipment
utilized by 2W1s to ensure munitions release from aircraft. Duties and
tasks performed by 2W1 personnel are referenced in the rater’s and
indorser’s comment blocks in each EPR and in the nomination for award.
The complete AFPC/DPAA opinion is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. The applicant provides no supporting
documentation (manning documents/unit manpower document) indicating he was
ever officially assigned to any AFSC other than 2W1X1. There is also no
indication that he ever questioned which AFSC he was to test for to be
considered for promotion. This would have been done at the time he
received and signed for his study material and test dates. DPSOE states he
was properly tested and considered in the correct career AFSC.
The complete AFPC/DPSOE opinion is at Exhibit D.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
The applicant states that 99.9 percent of his daily duties and
responsibilities were 2W0 related and it was difficult to work in an
environment which he did not belong in and had no experience or formal
training in. He received minimal assistance and training and the training
he did receive came from on-the-job (OJT) training. He states it was very
difficult to ask the 2W0s to train him.
He states he was always challenged by the 2W0s and his biggest challenges
were the junior and senior noncommissioned officers.
He states that the AFPC/DPPA opinion fails to mention that his primary duty
title of Munitions Control, Noncommissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC), is
only assigned to a 2W0 AFSC and the key duties, tasks, and responsibilities
describe the primary duties directly related to the 2W0 AFSC. Also not
mentioned was that the position itself was slotted for a 2W0 as shown on
the unit manning personnel roster (UMPR) and/or unit manning document
(UMD). He states there were several 2W0s assigned to the squadron who
could have been placed in the position.
He states his primary duties were of a 2WO, he only supervised 2W0
personnel, and he was being evaluated on a daily basis on his duty
performance by a 2W0 supervisor. He states he was taken out and separated
from the daily operations, duties, functions, and environment of a 2W1.
His primary duties directly related to the 2WO career field only.
He states there were no positions at his assigned unit for a 2W1 Quality
Assurance Inspector. He learned all required duties and functions which
were documented on his AF Form 797, Job Qualification Standard
Continuation/Command (JQS). He questions why he was never rotated out of
the Munitions Control Flight, why he was not assigned primary duties as a
Quality Control Assurance Inspector and augmentee for the Munitions Control
Flight, and why a 2W0 technical sergeant was not assigned as the Munitions
Control NCOIC.
The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit F.
_______________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
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. Although we note
the applicant was assigned outside his AFSC as indicated in his STEP
nomination, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force
offices 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. Therefore, 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 Docket Number BC-2008-00167
in Executive Session on 11 June 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. Steven A. Cantrell, Member
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 18 Dec 07.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPAA, dated 11 Mar 08.
Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 8 Apr 08.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 08.
Exhibit F. Applicant’s Rebuttal, w/atchs, dated
2 May 08.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02569
DPSOE states members cannot test in an Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) for which they are no longer assigned. After returning from deployment, the applicant was scheduled and tested PFE only on 24 Feb 10 for cycle 10E6 in CAFSC 3D1X2 based on the AFSC conversion. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02631
Although the UMD applicant provided reflects that a staff sergeant position existed, it does not justify placing a master sergeant 7-level against that position. In support of his request, he submits Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) reflecting his DAFSC as 8J000, statements from the squadron commander and command chief master sergeant, Unit Manning Documents (UMDs), and a WAPS promotion testing notification for cycle 02E8 listing his AFSC as 8J000. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2015 | BC 2015 00322
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00322 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to Active Duty (AD) and promoted to the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt) with a date of rank and effective date of 1 Nov 14. His promotion was a result of an audit conducted on the enlisted promotion process where AFPC identified a software issue with the automated scanner used to score WAPS tests. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2015 | BC 2015 00270
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00270 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to Active Duty (AD) and promoted to the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt) with a date of rank and effective date of 1 Oct 14. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02992
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2010-02992 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 3 April 2009 through 2 April 2010, be voided and removed from his records, and, he be allowed to cross-train into a different Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) and continue to serve in the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03501
The EPR does not reflect the correct Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC). The completed DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit G. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant, through counsel, submits a 7-page statement and a 1-page statement regarding the Air Force advisories. Counsel alleges the actions taken by the commander for the applicants DUI were appropriate; however, the additional actions against the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01267
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01267 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-6) effective the first promotion cycle he tested without his 7- skill level. Members compete for promotion in the CAFSC they hold as of the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECOD) for a...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00595
If an individual performed duties in a secondary AFSC, it might be reflected in one of the EPRs or decorations, or in the duty history; however, a secondary AFSC has never been reflected as a separate entry on the SNCO evaluation brief. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 19 Aug 11 for review and...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03875
As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). While we note the comments from the Air Force OPR indicating the applicant has not substantiated the contested EPR was not rendered accurately by all evaluators at the time, we believe the documentation submitted by the applicant, specifically, the replacement EPR signed in 2009 by all three of the official signatories on the EPR in question, as well as signed memoranda from every member of his chain of command at...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03875
As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). While we note the comments from the Air Force OPR indicating the applicant has not substantiated the contested EPR was not rendered accurately by all evaluators at the time, we believe the documentation submitted by the applicant, specifically, the replacement EPR signed in 2009 by all three of the official signatories on the EPR in question, as well as signed memoranda from every member of his chain of command at...