Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03937
Original file (BC-2011-03937.txt) Auto-classification: Approved
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. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. She was tentatively selected for promotion to the grade of 
SMSgt in her Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) of 3M0X1, 
Food Service Superintendent that she held and tested in prior to 
the 30 Sep 10 promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD). On 
30 Sep 10, she was still assigned to the Food Service 
Superintendent position and did not move to the Career Advisory 
Assistant (CAA), position (AFSC 8A100) until 1 Oct 10 when the 
previous CAA was reassigned. 

 

2. She received two emails (15 and 24 Sep 10) from the CAA 
functional manager stating “everyone needed to scrub their 
records to reflect their current duty status.” Since, she had 
not officially moved into the CAA position, no changes were 
made. However, after receiving the second email, she felt 
pressured to update her information, even though she was not 
officially in the position. 

 

3. On 29 Sep 10, an Air Force IMT 2096, Classification/On-the-
Job Training Action was completed to update her CAFSC to 8A100, 
with an effective date of 30 Sep 10. However, she was advised 
to have the Military Personnel Section (MPS) pull the original 
AF IMT 2096 and submit a new one with an effective date of 
1 Oct 10. 

 

4. The corrected AF IMT 2096 was submitted to AFPC; however, it 
was rejected because her supervisor and commander digitally 
signed the form, which is not authorized. She was not made 
aware of this until 14 Mar 11, a few days after the promotion 
results were announced. Her tentative promotion selection was 
deemed erroneous because her records were scored in the wrong 
CAFSC. 

 

5. She submitted the necessary paperwork prior to the PECD and 
competed in the correct CAFSC. 

 


In support of her request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, letters of support, copies of AF IMT 2096, emails, 
her Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) Score Notice, 
Enlisted Data Verification Record (DVR), AF Form 1566, WAPS 
Testing Notification RIP, and other documentation in support of 
her application. 

 

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force in the grade 
of master sergeant (MSgt) and performing CAA duties. 

 

The applicant was considered and selected for promotion to the 
grade of SMSgt during cycle 11E8 in CAFSC 3M0X1. She received 
promotion sequence number (PSN) 196.0 which would have 
incremented 1 May 11; however, her line number was removed when 
it was discovered that she had tested in the wrong CAFSC. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states members compete for 
promotion in the CAFSC they hold as of the PECD. The PECD for 
cycle 11E8 was 30 Sep 10. However, the effective date that was 
updated into the MPS was 1 Oct 10. This caused the applicant to 
be considered in the incorrect AFSC (3M0X1). She was 
supplementally considered for promotion to the grade of SMSgt in 
the correct AFSC and rendered a non-select. 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant reiterates her original contention that she was 
still performing duties as a Food Service Superintendent (3M0X1) 
while training part time with the previous CAA. She did 
complete the AF IMT 2096 that is now filed in the Automated 
Records Management System (ARMS) prior to moving into the 8A100 
position, but was advised by her leadership to have the MPS pull 
it and resubmit a new one with the correct date. 

 

The applicant states that removing her line number was an 
injustice. Under, the supplemental process, she did not receive 
a board score to even know her standing amongst her peers. She 
was only in the career field for one day according to the 


erroneous 2096 and competed against 8A100s that have been in the 
position for a while. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. While we 
note AFPC/DPSOE’s guidance to us that individuals compete for 
promotion in the AFSC they hold as of the PECD, the evidence of 
record in this case has raised doubt as to which AFSC the 
applicant was performing duties in as of the PECD. In this 
respect, we note the applicant’s AF Form 2096 reflects she was 
assigned to the CAA position on the PECD. The Force Support 
Squadron Superintendant (FSS/CEM) and wing command chief 
(Wg/CCM) state a request was submitted to assign her to the CAA 
position after the PECD; however, due to administrative errors, 
the AF Form 2096 was never acted upon. Moreover, the FSS/CEM 
and the Wg/CCM state the applicant did not officially begin CAA 
duties until after the PECD. Given the unequivocal support of 
her senior enlisted leadership and having no basis to question 
their integrity, we believe it is in the interest of equity and 
justice to allow the applicant to retain her selection for 
promotion in the Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) of 
3M0X1. Therefore, we recommend her records be corrected as 
indicated below. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that she was 
promoted to the grade of SMSgt (E-8) effective and with a date 
of rank of 1 May 2011. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-03937 in Executive Session on 19 Apr 12, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

Member 

 Member 

 

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Sep 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOE, Letter, dated 14 Nov 11. 

 Exhibit C. SAF/MRBR, Letter, dated 2 Dec 11. 

 Exhibit D. Applicant Letter, dated 26 Dec 11. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04555

    Original file (BC-2012-04555.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-04370

    Original file (BC-2012-04370.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    As a result, the applicant and one other member were erroneously selected for promotion. Upon discovery of the error, the applicant’s erroneous promotion selection was removed and the eight members who were considered in the wrong AFSC were given supplemental promotion consideration in the 8F000 AFSC. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He checked with the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05819

    Original file (BC 2012 05819.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2001 | 0101258

    Original file (0101258.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    When she was subsequently considered in the correct promotion AFSC, 8B000 (Military Training Instructor), she was not selected. According to the Air Force, had she been considered in the MTI career field, she still would not have been selected because her test score was too low. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03124

    Original file (BC 2014 03124.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 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 the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 04054

    Original file (BC 2007 04054.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 01490

    Original file (BC 2014 01490.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Per AFI 36-2502, paragraph 2.8.3.1, a supplemental request based on a missing decoration must have a closeout date on or before the PECD and the commander’s recommendation date on the Décor-6 must be before the date AFPC makes the selections for promotion. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The investigation by his chain of command clearly shows credible evidence that the MSM recommendation was placed into military channels and was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03434

    Original file (BC-2005-03434.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    MSgt K---, a member of his AFS (4Y0X0), was attending the First Sergeant Academy and her record was scored in the 4Y0X0 career field. Each individual's record was corrected, they were provided supplemental promotion consideration, and not selected for promotion in the 8F000 CAFSC. Therefore, the CAFSC effective date would be the date assigned duty--11 Nov 04.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02569

    Original file (BC-2011-02569.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 02579

    Original file (BC 2012 02579.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 applicant’s 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 applicant’s request...