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.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to an error in her military records, she was overlooked for 
the 09E5 promotion testing cycle.  Her records show that she was 
erroneously classified as a 9A100 Air Force Specialty Code 
(AFSC) after being removed from her 1C1X1 career field for fear 
of controlling.  This caused her retraining packet to get denied 
and she was moved to a 9A300 AFSC without her acknowledgement.  
Her paperwork did not get fixed until 16 Sep 09 when she was 
reclassified as a 9A000.  This action corrected her DOR to the 
grade of senior airman to 9 Oct 08.  She attempted to get her 
testing study material; however, she was denied because she was 
ineligible to test.

On 2 Feb 10, AFPC granted her approval to test contingent upon a 
memorandum from her commander.  The memorandum was signed on 
16 Feb 10; however, she was still denied study material due to 
non-availability.  On 3 Mar 10, she signed for the 09E5 testing 
date and had to test on 11 Mar 10 due to a mandatory temporary 
duty assignment. 

She states that the governing Air Force instruction states that 
she must be given access to reference materials at least 60 days 
before her test date.  Had she been allotted the 60 days of 
study time she would have tested in the 10E5 cycle.  She cannot 
be administered an obsolete test so the test results from her 
10E5 test should have been back dated to the 09E5 cycle which 
would have made her an E5 a year earlier. 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of AF 
Forms 2096 (AFSC changes), email correspondence and discussion 
threads of her status during the testing cycle.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a staff sergeant with an effective date and DOR 
of 1 Feb 11.  

The Promotion Eligibility Cut-Off Date (PECD) for cycle 09E5 was 
31 Mar 09.  On 16 Sep 09, the applicant’s AFSC was changed to 
reflect 9A000 (disqualified not for cause).  She was 
subsequently tested (Promotion Fitness Examination (PFE) only) 
and considered against all other retrainees (00XXX).  Her total 
score was 230.60 and the score required for selection was 
267.98.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOE recommended denial of the applicant's request to have 
her cycle 10E5 test score used in the promotion process for 
cycle 09E5.  The applicant was considered PFE only and had 
access to study reference material regardless of her eligibility 
condition, rank or AFSC.  As a matter of information, the 
applicant was selected for promotion to SSgt during cycle 10E5.

Airmen are considered for promotion in the AFSC they hold at the 
time of the PECD.  The PECD for cycle 09E5 was 31 Mar 09.  As of 
that date, the applicant's AFSC was reflected in the system as 
9A100 (ineligible).  AFPC/DPSIC has determined that they did not 
approve her disqualification from AFSC 1C1X1 until 16 Sep 09 and 
her AFSC was updated to reflect 9A000 (disqualified not for 
cause and awaiting retraining).  Since she was not officially 
disqualified from her previous AFSC (1ClX1) unti1 16 Sep 09, the 
9A100 update should be deemed erroneous and the applicant should 
have been considered for promotion during cycle 09E5 in the 
1C1Xl AFSC.  Since both career fields (1C1X1 and OOXXX) test PFE 
only, her total weighted score (230.60) was compared to the 
cutoff for AFSC 1C1X1 for cycle 09E5 (268.23).  The applicant 
remains a nonselect.

The applicant claims that she was not given enough time to 
prepare for promotion testing and was forced to test with just 
8 days notice.  The applicant signed an AF IMT 1566, Weighted 
Airman Promotion System (WAPS) Test Verification on 
3 Mar 10, acknowledging her test date of 11 Mar 10.  AFI 36-
2505, Air Force Military Personnel Testing System, states "Do 
not delay testing to give additional study time unless members 
did not have access to study reference materials at least 
60 days prior to test date."  In the applicant's case she was 
testing PFE only.  The PFE measures the airman's broad knowledge 
of the military and all eligible take the same PFE regardless of 
rank and AFSC. Furthermore, all individuals receive a hard copy 
of the PFE whether they are eligible to test or not.  The PDF 
format version is available through the web as well.  In 
addition, AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, para 1.19 lists 
several individual responsibilities with regard to testing.  It 
lists as an individual responsibility the requirement to receive 
at least 60 days access to study materials prior to testing.  It 
goes on to say that when a person signs the WAPS Test 
Verification (AF IMT 1566) he or she is waiving the right to the 
60 days even if he or she does not have the materials 60 days 
prior to the test date.  It further states that the member is 
waiving the right to the 60 days if they have not initiated 
follow-up action to obtain study material in a timely manner (at 
least 60 days before start of testing cycle).  All members are 
expected to be prepared to test the first day of the testing 
cycle.

A complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 1 Mar 13 for review and comment within 30 days.  As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

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, the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility has provided an exhaustive review of the 
applicant’s issues and we are in agreement with the rationale 
expressed 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.

________________________________________________________________

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-2012-05819 in Executive Session on 17 Sep 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Dec 12. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 8 Feb 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Mar 13.




                                   Panel Chair