RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-04370

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His selection for promotion to Senior Master Sergeant (E-8) be 
restored.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  Even though he was erroneously allowed to test for promotion 
in his former 4A1X1 (Medical Material) Air Force Specialty Code 
(AFSC), the removal of his promotion was unfair.  He exercised 
due diligence in ensuring that he tested for promotion in the 
correct AFSC.  Even though he had recently graduated the First 
Sergeant Academy (FSA) and was serving as a First Sergeant, he 
was repeatedly advised that his CAFSC, for the purposes of 
promotion consideration, should be 4A1X1 (Medical Material) 
instead of 8F000 (First Sergeant).  Having been assured this was 
correct, he had no reason to question the accuracy of his CAFSC 
when he tested and was selected for promotion.  This is 
consistent with the provisions of AFI 36-2113, The First 
Sergeant, which indicates the wear of the first sergeant device 
(diamond) is authorized upon graduation from the FSA while 
assigned to a valid 8F000 position. 

2.  This situation did not come to light as a result of the data 
verification check prescribed in AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/ 
Demotion Programs, but was the result of unfair scrutiny born 
from a complaint about his selection for promotion in his former 
AFSC.  As a result of this complaint, it was discovered that he 
and seven other members of his FSA class were allowed to test 
for promotion in their former AFSCs.  As the evidence indicates, 
he was notified of the removal of his promotion well after the 
ten days prescribed in the AFI for data verification checks.

3.  While he was offered supplemental promotion consideration in 
his correct AFSC, it is unfair to compare his record, which 
reflects him being a First Sergeant for such a short time, 
against those of other First Sergeants who have been doing the 
job for some time.

4.  Ultimately, this situation did not result from an error on 
his part and renders him the victim of an injustice.  He 
questioned the effective date of his new CAFSC for testing 
purposes multiple times with experts from his losing and gaining 
units of assignment and was told each time that his CAFSC for 
the purpose of promotion consideration was correct.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force 
(RegAF) in the grade of master sergeant (E-7).

On 11 Aug 11, Special Order AE-125325 was issued directing the 
applicant’s reassignment via permanent change of station (PCS) 
from Fairchild AFB, WA to Lakenheath, UK, with reporting not 
later than 30 Oct 11.  This order reflects the applicant’s CAFSC 
as 8F000.

On 11 Sep 11, the applicant departed his former duty station to 
attend the FSA from 12 Sep 11 through 30 Sep 11.

On 11 Oct 11, the applicant arrived at Lakenheath, UK and 
commenced his assignment as a First Sergeant.

On 7 Nov 11, the applicant signed AF IMT 1566, WAPS Test 
Verification, acknowledging he was scheduled to test on 
5 Dec 11, in CAFSC 4A1X1 for promotion cycle 12E8.  On 5 Dec 11, 
the applicant tested for promotion.

On 14 Dec 11, an AF IMT 2096, Classification/On-the-Job Training 
Action, was initiated to award the applicant the 8F000 (First 
Sergeant) AFSC as his Primary AFSC, effective 11 Oct 11, for the 
purpose of initiating his special duty assignment pay (SDAP).

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an injustice.  The applicant and 40 other service members 
attended the FSA in Sep 11.  Of the twenty-two attendees that 
were eligible for promotion consideration during the contested 
promotion cycle, eight members, including the applicant, were 
inadvertently considered in the wrong AFSC.  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.

Members compete for promotion in the CAFSC they hold at the 
promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD).  The PECD for the 12E8 
cycle was 30 Sep 11.  At the PECD, the weighted airman promotion 
systems (WAPS) reflected the applicant’s CAFSC as 4A1X1; 
however, it should have reflected 8F000 (First Sergeant).  In 
accordance with AFI 36-2101, Classifying Military Personnel 
(Officer and Enlisted), the effective date of the CAFSC (for 
retraining through a formal school [including special duty]) is 
the date the member departed their current duty station PCS or 
permanent change of assignment (PCA).  

There are no provisions for an individual to retain a promotion 
to which they were erroneously selected.  However, supplemental 
consideration is afforded to members whose records were in error 
during the Central Selection Board process.  The applicant was 
therefore provided supplemental consideration in the correct 
AFSC and was rendered a non-select.  This action is fair and 
consistent with how similarly situated members have been 
treated.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He checked with the experts on several occasions questioning the 
effective date of his CAFSC and was told each time his CAFSC for 
promotion consideration was accurately reflected as 4A1X1.  He 
believed he was testing in the correct CAFSC.  He was not 
notified of the error in testing in the wrong CAFSC as required 
under the governing instruction.  He also believes his records 
could not fairly compete in the supplemental process against 
those who had served longer in First Sergeant’s career field.

The applicant’s complete response 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.  The 
applicant contends that the removal of his selection for 
promotion was an injustice and caused by the Air Force’s error 
in allowing him to be considered for promotion in the wrong 
career field, despite his repeated efforts to ensure he was 
appropriately considered in his former career field.  After a 
thorough review of the evidence of record, the majority believes 
a preponderance of the evidence indicates the applicant is the 
victim of an injustice.  In this respect, the majority notes 
that even though Air Force policy required the applicant’s 
control air force specialty code (CAFSC) to be changed prior to 
his departure for retraining, responsible officials at his 
losing unit failed to do so.  As a result, his CAFSC was not 
changed until well after the promotion eligibility cut-off date, 
resulting in him being erroneously considered for promotion 
among his former peers.  Therefore, in view of the fact the 
applicant’s predicament was the result of circumstances beyond 
his control, and the majority of the Board believes the 
applicant exercised due diligence in ensuring he was considered 
for promotion among the correct peer group, the majority 
believes that the removal of his selection for promotion 
constitutes an injustice that warrants corrective action.  
Therefore, in order to preclude an injustice to the applicant, 
we believe his records should 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 he was 
promoted to the grade of Senior Master Sergeant (E-8), effective 
and with a date of rank of 1 Mar 13.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-04370 in Executive Session on 4 Jun 13 and 
18 Jul 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

?
By a majority vote, the Board voted to recommend granting the 
requested relief.  voted to deny the application 
and has submitted a minority report, which is attached at 
Exhibit F.    The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Sep 12, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 24 Oct 12.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Nov 12.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Dec 12.
	   Exhibit F.  Minority Report, dated 27 Aug 13.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair


DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 
WASHINGTON DC 


Office of the Assistant Secretary




MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD 
		FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:   AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04370

      I have carefully considered all the facts and circumstances of this case and the 
evidence of record.  I do not agree with the recommendation of the majority of the Board 
to grant the applicant’s request to have his erroneous promotion selection to the grade of 
senior master sergeant (E-8) reinstated.
      The majority of the Board believes the applicant’s promotion selection should be 
reinstated because they concluded that he exercised due diligence in ensuring he was 
supposed to compete for promotion against his former peers, even though he had recently 
retrained into the First Sergeant career field.  However, after reviewing the facts and 
circumstances of this case, I agree with the opinion and recommendation of the minority 
member of the Board.  
      While the applicant argues that he went the extra mile to ensure he was supposed 
to compete for promotion in his former career field, other than his own assertions, he has 
provided no documentation to substantiate this point.  Additionally, while the applicant’s 
situation is unfortunate, he has not presented any evidence to indicate that he has been 
treated differently than other similarly situated service members.  Granting the 
applicant’s request would constitute an injustice to others who have been erroneously 
selected for promotion and had their promotion selections rightfully removed.  Finally, 
approval of this request would certainly constitute an injustice to those 14 members of his 
First Sergeant class who were properly considered for promotion among their First 
Sergeant peers, but may have fared better if considered within their former career fields.
      Therefore, in accordance with the authority delegated by the Secretary in 
Headquarters Air Force Mission Directive 1-24, I hereby deny the applicant’s request that 
his erroneous promotion be reinstated.
      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




				
				Assistant Secretary
				(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)













T