RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02569
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reconsidered for promotion to the grade of technical
sergeant (TSgt) for cycle 09E6, or in the alternative, he be
given the stripe outright.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was not allowed to test with his peers on both the Specialty
Knowledge Test (SKT) and PDG (sic) Promotion Fitness Examination
(PFE) before 31 Dec 09.
He was not able to test SKT for the 09E6 cycle even though he
gave notice before 31 Dec 09.
He had to correct an Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) which made
it impossible for him to test in Feb - Mar 2009. The EPR was
corrected on 29 Jun 09, and he notified the Weighted Airman
Promotion System (WAPS) testing center by phone that he wanted to
test.
He was deployed in Sep 09 for four months and when he returned,
they informed him he would not be testing SKT, but PDG (sic)
only.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal
statement, various emails, and paperwork related to his EPR
appeal.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
staff sergeant (SSgt).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states there are no
provisions that would allow any individual an automatic promotion
to TSgt or any other grade, based on the applicants
circumstances. DPSOE states members cannot test in an Air Force
Specialty Code (AFSC) for which they are no longer assigned. The
applicant was properly considered in the correct AFSC based on
the 1 Nov 09 effective date of the AFSC conversion, using the
same policies and procedures afforded others in similar
circumstances.
Members compete for promotion in the AFSC they hold at the
promotion eligibility cut-off date (PECD). The PECD for cycle
09E6 was 31 Dec 08, and the applicants CAFSC was 2E2X1. The
applicant states that he did not test during the normal testing
cycle (1 Feb - 31 Mar) due to a referral report that was in the
process of being corrected. The EPR closed out 25 Mar 09 and was
approved for correction by the Evaluation Reports and Appeals
Board (ERAB) in July. In Aug, the applicants servicing Military
Personnel Section (MPS) contacted the Air Force Personnel Center
(AFPC) as to his eligibility for testing. At the time, the
system reflected he was ineligible due to a promotion eligibility
status (PES) code of R (referral) still being updated. Since
the referral EPR had been corrected, the MPS was instructed to
correct the PES code and schedule the applicant to test. The
applicant did not test prior to his departure for deployment in
Sep 09.
DPSOE indicates that pursuant to SAF/A6 and AF/A3O direction,
career fields 2E, 3A and 3C converted to various AFSCs within the
new 3D Cyber Career Field during the 31 Oct 09 AFSC conversion
cycle. 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. Since his current
CAFSC did not have an SKT, his PFE score was doubled and applied
retroactively to cycle 09E6. His total score was 303.14 and the
score required for selection in his AFSC was 310.93
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 19 Aug 11, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a
response has not been received (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
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 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-2011-02569 in Executive Session on 20 Mar 12, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Jul 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 3 Aug 11.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Aug 11.
Panel Chair
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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 03124
He was not given his Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) study material in a timely manner to prepare for his promotion test. The Promotion Eligibility Cut-Off Date (PECD) for promotion cycle 13E5 was 31 Mar 13. We took notice of the applicants 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 the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has...
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 | 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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-02295
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. We therefore conclude the fair and right thing to do is to recommend the 4N0X1C members be given supplemental consideration in the CAFSC 4N0X1 for the 05E6/05E7 promotion cycle. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
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-2005-02313
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. We therefore conclude the fair and right thing to do is to recommend the 4N0X1C members be given supplemental consideration in the CAFSC 4N0X1 for the 05E6/05E7 promotion cycle. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02404
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. We therefore conclude the fair and right thing to do is to recommend the 4N0X1C members be given supplemental consideration in the CAFSC 4N0X1 for the 05E6/05E7 promotion cycle. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02440
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. We therefore conclude the fair and right thing to do is to recommend the 4N0X1C members be given supplemental consideration in the CAFSC 4N0X1 for the 05E6/05E7 promotion cycle. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02251
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. We therefore conclude the fair and right thing to do is to recommend the 4N0X1C members be given supplemental consideration in the CAFSC 4N0X1 for the 05E6/05E7 promotion cycle. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...