RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01764
INDEX CODE: 131.00
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His promotion sequence number (PSN) to the grade of technical sergeant
(TSgt) (E-6), which would have incremented on 1 Dec 07 for cycle 07E6, be
reinstated.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
On 11 Jun 07, he was deployed to Iraq for a 4-month tour. During his
deployment he was notified he had been selected for promotion to technical
sergeant. For the duration of his tour, he stepped up and began to learn
his duties as a technical sergeant and how to be a more effective
leader/supervisor. On 23 Oct 07, he was notified that his decoration
points were in question and that he needed to show proof of the decorations
he had received. The MPF showed he had two Air Force Commendation Medals
(AFCM) and one Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) when it should have been
vice versa. When his records were corrected to reflect the correct
decorations, he missed the promotion selection by .46 points. He was led
to believe he had received a promotion and feels that stripping him of this
promotion would be like punishing him for bad conduct. It would be an
embarrassment for him as well as humiliating to his personal life. At this
point, he feels there is no way he can return to his duty as staff sergeant
without losing face with all the airmen.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement,
supporting letters to include his commander's supporting letter, a copy of
his congratulatory letter and other associated documents relating to his
promotion.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) indicates the applicant is
currently serving on active duty in the grade of staff sergeant, having
assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Sep 01.
The applicant was tentatively selected for promotion to the grade of TSgt
during cycle 07E6 with a PSN of 2441.0., which would have incremented on 1
Dec 07.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states that when the applicant was
initially considered, the promotion file at AFPC (based on updates from the
MPF), reflected he had two AFCMs and one AFAM when, in fact, he had one
AFCM and two AFAMs. Based on the erroneous data, he was given a decoration
score of 7.00 making his total score 292.33 (above the required score for
selection of 290.79). When he was reconsidered with the correct
decorations, his decoration score became 5.00 with a total score of 290.33
(below the 290.79 required for selection).
DPSOE advises that verification of promotion data, before and after
consideration for promotion, is essential in order to maintain the
credibility of the Weighted Airman Promotion System. One key aspect of the
"selection for promotion" notification procedures is that commanders are
permitted to announce selections to individuals as "tentative" prior to the
MPF officials completing the detailed data verification process. HQ
AFPC/DPP instructed MPFs to remind commanders to advise selectees their
selection was tentative until the data verification process was completed
and the member's score notice is received. DPSOE advises that there are
over 30,000 individuals tentatively selected for promotion annually. Of
this number, approximately 35 must be removed from the selection list
because of data errors. The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit
B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 27
Jun 08 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this
office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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.
______________________________________________________________
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-2008-01764
in Executive Session on 28 Aug 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr, Panel Chair
Ms. Dee R. Reardon, Member
Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2008-
01764 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Apr 08, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 10 Jun 08.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jun 08.
WALLACE F. BEARD JR
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02326
Current Air Force promotion policy, AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 2.2, Rule 5, Note 2, {sic – should be Rule 7} 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 PECD, and the date of the DÉCOR-6, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP), must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. Although the Board is sympathetic to the applicant’s near-miss for promotion, evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02522
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C & D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. DPSIDR notes the VMPF data printout provided by the applicant indicates an MSM was approved on 2 Jul 01 by Special Order (SO) GC-283; however, the official SO 283...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-00436
On 20 Nov 06, the request was disapproved by the MPF Chief and the Mission Support Squadron (MSS) commander, stating that in accordance with AFI 36- 2605, Air Force Military Personnel Testing System, the applicant’s excuse was not a valid reason to reschedule testing, promotion testing time is never changed, and that he was informed of the correct time to report for testing. The testing time never changes and is always at 0750. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 02649
________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Since the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) removed his referral report (TSgt) his grade of technical sergeant should be reinstated. Upon further review, they noted the applicant was ineligible for promotion consideration to TSgt for cycle 09E6 and should have not been allowed to test. The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04076
She was notified by the Base Records Office that the basic AFAM was missing from her personnel records and she needed to provide a copy or her records would be changed to reflect the assumed discrepancy. The complete DPSOE 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 1 Apr 11, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03443
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The letter of reprimand (LOR) and referral EPR he received are not the norm in the Air Force for first time fitness assessment (FA) failures. The applicant failed the FA almost five months before the close- out of the evaluation in question and had over four months from the time of his FA failure to overcome the deficiency. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03057
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03057 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 2 July 2009 through 15 April 2010 be voided and removed from her records. The following is a resume of the applicants EPR profile: PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 20 Dec 01 (SrA)...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 04054
On 7 September 2007, he tested for promotion to the grade of CMSGT, promotion cycle 07E9, under his Control AFSC (CAFSC) at the time of 8T000. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was selected for promotion to the grade of Chief Master Sergeant during promotion cycle 07E9 in the Control Air Force Specialty Code of 8T000,...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01941
The evidence of record reflects the applicant’s AFSC was withdrawn for failing to progress in upgrade training, which resulted in removal of his line number. ___________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: The majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. B. J. WHITE-OLSON Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2006-01941 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01409
The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response dated 24 Jun 07, the applicant states supplemental promotion consideration creates two injustices. 1) His records will not be scored by the same promotion board members as the rest of his promotion eligible peers; and 2) under the supplemental promotion process, he will never receive a promotion board score. ...