RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04555 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His promotion sequence number of 1680 to the grade of senior 
master sergeant (E-8) be reinstated. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

In a two page memorandum, the applicant makes the following key 
contentions: 

 

1. His promotion sequence number was cancelled upon review by 
members of the First Sergeant Academy Class 11H, rather than the 
entire promotion group, as it should have been. He took every 
step necessary to ensure that he competed in the correct Control 
Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC). He was advised by multiple 
individuals in two military personnel sections that his CAFSC was 
correct for testing. Personnel from his losing unit, the 633 Air 
Base Wing Formal Training Section, told him that an AF Form 2096 
needed to be accomplished in order to change his CAFSC. However, 
they also told him that they could not process the form because 
he was not assigned to an 8F000 billet. 

 

2. He was approved and selected for First Sergeant duty and 
attended the First Sergeant Academy (FSA) on 12 Sep 11. His 
graduation date of 30 Sep 11 was also the same date as the 
Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for the 12E8 promotion 
cycle. 

 

3. He was notified of his selection for promotion to SMSgt on 
8 Mar 12 with a line number of 1680. 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. He and one other master 
sergeant were selected for promotion, but had their line numbers 
revoked. The two sergeants were approved to test in a 
supplemental cycle. He was informed that this came about because 
fellow first sergeants filed an official complaint that was 
targeted against him and the other sergeant. He was not selected 
for promotion by the 12E8 supplemental process; however, he never 


received notification of selection or non-selection. He 
contacted AFPC promotions on 10 Aug 12, one day after the 
supplemental results were published, and was told that he would 
have his name on the list if he was selected for promotion, but 
they could not confirm that he actually competed. 

 

4. He believes that only the first sergeants were relooked at 
during this process. IAW the governing instructions, AFPC/DPSOE 
conducts data verification on promotion selects prior to the 
virtual promotion release. It also states that a data 
verification on promotion selects will be accomplished no later 
than 10 days after virtual promotion release and notifies the MPS 
when errors are identified. He was notified of the cancellation 
of his promotion well outside the 10-day verification period. 

 

5. He does not believe he made an error; however, he believes 
that it was an Air Force system error. He complied with the test 
proctor instructions and brought to his attention that his CAFSC 
was wrong based on the instructions he read. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
Enlisted Data Verification Record (DVR), copies of his WAPS Score 
Notice, a copy of the 99 FSS/FSMPD letter, a copy of two unsigned 
letters from AFPC/DPSOE, copies of email communications, an 
extract from AFI 36-2113, Manpower and Personnel The First 
Sergeant, Chapter 9, and an extract from AFI 36-2502, Airman 
Promotion Program. 

 

His 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). He attended the 
FSA from 12 Sep 11 through 30 Sep 11. 

 

On 10 Nov 11, the applicant signed AF IMT 1566, WAPS Test 
Verification, acknowledging he was scheduled to test for the 12E8 
promotion cycle in the 3D1X2 CAFSC. 

 

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained 
in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air 
Force, which is 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 3D1X2; 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 reiterates his original contentions and believes he did 
everything in his power to ensure he was competing in the correct 
CAFSC prior to testing. He followed all instructions as were 
provided to him at the time. He believes it is an injustice to 
remove his line number as well as his non-selection during the 
supplemental promotion process. In this respect, under the 
supplemental process, he did not receive a board score to know 
what his standings were amongst his peers. He was only in the 
8F000 career field for 22 days of which was time spent at the 
FSA. His records were not scored by the same board members as 
the other 8F000 eligibles. 

 

 

 

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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an injustice. We took notice of the 
applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case 
and do not find it supports a determination that the applicant’s 
promotion to senior master sergeant should be reinstated. In 
this respect, it appears the applicant’s promotion selection 
removal was appropriately executed in accordance with governing 
directives. While we note that the applicant was selected for 
promotion under an erroneous CAFSC, upon discovery of the error, 
the applicant along with the other members who were considered in 
the wrong AFSC were given supplemental promotion consideration. 
We sympathize with the applicant’s situation, however, in the 
absence of evidence showing he was treated differently from 
others similarly situated, 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-04555 in Executive Session on 23 Jul 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2012-
04555 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Sep 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 29 Oct 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Nov 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Dec 12 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair