RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03804
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) for
promotion cycle 11E5.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
On 2 Sep 11, while deployed in Afghanistan, he looked at his
promotion data in the vMPF and noticed his promotion information
changed and his official score was above the cutoff. He
contacted his unit and was told the Air Force Personnel Center
(AFPC) changed the cutoff for Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC)
3P0X1 to 258.33. This led him to believe the posted scores were
correct and he should be promoted. The Force Support Squadron
(FSS) stated they would confirm the change with AFPC.
Subsequently, the FSS advised him that AFPC had made a human
error. He believes receiving a new score notice in the vMPF
constitutes his promotion notification and requests the Board
honor this notification of promotion.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal
statement, various emails between his home station Force Support
Squadron (FSS) and AFPC/DPSOE, and the vMPF WAPS Score Notice.
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
senior airman (SrA).
He was considered and nonselected for promotion to SSgt during
cycle 11E5 (promotions effective 1 Sep 11 1 Aug 12) in AFSC
3P0X1. His total score was 258.43 and the score required for
selection in his AFSC was 259.00.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states the applicants score
during cycle 11E5 was below the cutoff required for selection in
his AFSC.
On 1 Sep 11, a cutoff score change was accomplished when it was
determined that an individual who was selected was ineligible for
promotion consideration. The new cutoff score was 258.83;
however, the number was inadvertently mistyped as 258.33, and the
vMPF system automatically refreshed when the new cutoff was
updated. On 2 Sep 11, a message was sent to all Military
Personnel Section (MPS) promotion offices with affected
individuals informing them that they would run through the in-
system supplemental process. They would receive a new score
notice via vMPF on 8 Sep 11 and would be rendered a tentative
select pending data verification. That afternoon the cutoff
score error was discovered, corrected, and at 2:35 another
message was sent to the applicants MPS informing them of the
error.
Selects for the September in-system supplemental were run on
2 Sep 11, and officially released on 8 Sep 11. Therefore, the
information the applicant saw on his vMPF WAPS score notice,
dated 1 Sep 11, was tentative (as stated in the first line of the
score notice), data verification had not been accomplished, and
the official announcement of selects was not scheduled for public
release until 8 Sep 11. Cutoff changes are a common occurrence
for every cycle, but scores are not official until selects are
actually run, released and data verification has been
accomplished. Personnel are informed when promotions are first
announced they are tentative, pending data verification. When an
error is detected, regardless of what caused the error, the
correction is made in order to maintain the fairness and
integrity of the promotion process.
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 18 Nov 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.
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 issue 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-2011-03804 in Executive Session on 8 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 12 Sep 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 28 Oct 11.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Nov 11.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03937
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03937 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her line number for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt/E-8) be reinstated for promotion cycle 11E8. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04555
On 15 May 12, he was sent an email that stated there were 8 first sergeants that had competed during the 12E8 WAPS cycle who tested in the wrong CAFSC and two of them were selected for SMSgt. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He reiterates his original contentions and believes he did everything in his power to ensure he was competing in the correct CAFSC...
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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-00938
The Air Force should have made the decision of changing this policy to be effective for future recruiting goals in the recruiting career field and provided a definitive date of implementation rather than affecting personnel currently serving in that duty. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and do not find that it supports a determination that he be awarded two WAPS points for his Air Force Recruiting ribbon. ...
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 | 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. ...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-01869
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After formal selection and official announcement by the Air Force of his promotion to MSgt, his Center Commander informed him of a discrepancy which reverses his promotion selection. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After formal selection and official announcement by the Air Force of his promotion to MSgt, his Center Commander informed him of a discrepancy which reverses his promotion selection. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05819
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05819 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her current Date of Rank (DOR) be changed to reflect that she was promoted during cycle 09E5 rather than Cycle 10E5. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommended denial of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01061
The JA evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant response to the Air Force evaluations, with attachments, is appended at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. In view of the conflicting AFIs governing the effective date for changing the CAFSC upon being selected for retraining and the fact that it is conceivable the...