RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03527
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her records be corrected to reflect she was exempt from taking
the Specialty Knowledge Test (SKT) for promotion cycle 07E10
(2010) and 07E11 (2011) to Master Sergeant (MSgt).
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
In Jan 08, when she returned to her primary Air Force Specialty
Code (PAFSC) after serving in a Special Duty Assignment (SDA),
her Training Status Code (TSC) should have been updated to C
(Upgrade training for the initial award of a 7-skill level AFSC)
because she was no longer fully qualified in her PAFSC. She had
not yet completed the 24-month transition period back to her
PAFSC before her Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) of 31
Dec 09.
In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of a
screen shot of her Training Status Code from the Military
Personnel Data System (MilPDS), an excerpt from AFI 36-2502 Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, her Weighted Airman
Promotion System Score Notice, and an AF IMT 330, Records
Transmittal/Request.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
In Mar 04, the applicant was awarded her 7-level in the 3S0X1
(Personnel) AFSC; in Apr 04, she began an SDA as an 8T000
(Airmen Leadership School Instructor); and, in Jan 08, she
returned to the 3S0X1 AFSC as a 7-level after serving outside
her PAFSC for three years and nine months.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letters prepared by the Air Force Offices of
Primary Responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C
and D.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of
an error or injustice. The applicant was awarded her 7-level in
Mar 04 before departing for her SDA. Upon return from the SDA
in Jan 08, she was correctly returned to her primary AFSC as a
7-level. In accordance with AFI 36-2201, Air Force Training
Program, in order to be put in TSC C a member must be a staff
sergeant (E-5) or above and possess a 5-level. In addition, the
applicant was not outside of her primary career field for the
required 6 years to qualify for a downgrade of her AFSC IAW AFI
36-2101, Classifying Military Personnel (Officer and Enlisted).
Therefore, the member was correctly put in TSC R (fully
qualified). The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence
to warrant correction of her TSC.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of
an error or injustice. The applicant correctly tested on both
the Promotion Fitness Examination (PFE) and SKT for cycle 10E7 in
AFSC 3S0X1 and was rendered a non-select. Her Promotion Fitness
Examination (PFE) score was 58.00, SKT score was 52.00, total
score was 307.50, and the score required for selection in her
AFSC was 329.50.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 25 Jan 12 for review and comment within 30 days.
As of this date, no response has been received by this office
(Exhibit E).
________________________________________________________________
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 an error or injustice. We took
notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary
responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for
our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error
of 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 the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2011-03527 in Executive Session on 3 April 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 Sep 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 5 Dec 11, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 5 Jan 12.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jan 12.
Panel Chair
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 | 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-2005-02799
_________________________________________________________________ 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 | 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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 03962
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03962 COUNSEL: NONE (DECEASED FORMER SERVICE MEMBER) HEARING DESIRED: NO (APPLICANT) APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The service member received an overall rating of 9 on the APR rendered for the period 20 Jul 74 through 26 May 75 with a recommendation to promote. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02353
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-2005-02683
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 assume the grade when data verification discovers missing or erroneous data.” Therefore, if an IDMT serving...
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 | CY2013 | BC-2012-03318
Notwithstanding the correction to his records, the applicant asserts he would have been promoted to TSgt effective 1 Jan 2012 had his CAFSC been correctly reflected in his records. We note that the applicants effective date of his CAFSC was corrected and he received supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of TSgt in his CAFSC and was selected. The applicant is now contending that had his CAFSC been correctly reflected in his records in Aug 2010, he would have been promoted to...