RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01267
	COUNSEL:  NONE
                     	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-6) 
effective the first promotion cycle he tested without his 7-
skill level.  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He held the 7-skill level in his Primary Air Force Specialty 
Code (PAFSC) at the time of his discharge; however, his DD Form 
214, reflects his PAFSC at the 5-skill level.  His Personal 
Information File was deliberately tampered with to inhibit him 
being promoted to the next higher grade (TSgt).  As a result, 
the elimination of his 7-skill level greatly reduced his ability 
to be selected for Civil Service.  

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement and copies of an Extension Course Institute card 
indicating his completion of his 5-skill level AFSC, and a 
Military Personnel Data System record print-out reflecting his 
7-skill level PAFSC as 3E471.  

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
served on active duty from 22 June 1981 to 30 June 2001.  He 
served as a Utilities Systems Craftsman and was progressively 
promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) (E-5) effective 
1 April 1988.  

The applicant was awarded the PAFSC 56671 in the Environmental 
Support career field, on 20 December 1988.  This AFSC converted 
to 3E471 as a part of the 31 October 1993 AFSC conversion.  

The applicant was considered for promotion to TSgt eleven times 
before retiring in the grade of SSgt after serving 20 years and 
9 days on active duty.  The first time he was eligible for 
consideration to TSgt was promotion cycle 91A6.  He tested for 
cycle 91A6 on 26 February 1990 and took the Skills Knowledge 
Test (SKT) for promotion in AFSC 56671.  His total weighted 
score was 264.91 and the score required for promotion selection 
in his Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) was 318.23.  

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from his military 
service records, are contained in the evaluation by the Air 
Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit B.  

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial.  DPSOE states that since the 
applicant received his 7-skill level on 20 December 1988, it 
would be impossible to consider him for promotion for any 
earlier E-6 promotion cycles as he was not time-in-grade 
eligible prior to promotion cycle 91A6.  

Members are assigned a PAFSC based on upgrade training and test 
for promotion based on their skill level.  Members compete for 
promotion in the CAFSC they hold as of the promotion eligibility 
cutoff date (PECOD) for a particular cycle.  The CAFSC is based 
on rank; therefore, the applicant’s CAFSC was 56651 since he 
held the grade of SSgt.  Test answer sheets are scored against a 
score key that is electronically programmed into the scanner for 
a particular AFSC and cycle.  If the applicant’s test answer 
sheet had been scored against the 56651 score key, as he 
asserts, the test would have been rejected and been rescored 
against the 56671 score key.  All SSgts eligible for promotion 
to TSgt in the applicant’s AFSC, took the 56671 test since they 
had a 7-skill level.  However, they compete against one another 
based on their CAFSC 56651 since their current grade is SSgt.  
The PAFSC indicates which skill level test is administered and 
the CAFSC indicates which grade they are competing against.  

In regard to the applicant’s request to correct his PAFSC on his 
DD Form 214, they have issued a DD Form 215, Correction to DD 
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, 
to reflect his PAFSC as “3E471-Utilities Systems Craftsman.”  
AFPC/DPSOR notified the applicant on 20 June 2013 of the 
correction and forwarded him a copy of the DD Form 215.   

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit B.  

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He was deliberately held back during his career.  He was 
harassed at every turn by higher authority appointed over him.  
He was placed in positions where he was over-scrutinized by his 
superiors and received lower ratings on his Enlisted Performance 
Reports (EPRs) than he deserved.  He made mistakes during his 
career as most people do, but for him his mistakes were held 
against him throughout his Air Force career when most are 
forgiven and allowed to succeed.  He is only asking for 
promotion to TSgt, a grade he would have been able to achieve if 
he were given the same opportunities as his peers and if he had 
been treated fairly.  

The applicant’s compete rebuttal 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 error or an injustice.  We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case to include his contentions that he was 
deliberately held back from promotion; however, the applicant 
has not provided any evidence to support his claim.  Therefore, 
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 the applicant has not been the victim 
of an error or injustice in regard to the requested promotion.  
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the applicant’s request for promotion to 
technical sergeant.

________________________________________________________________
_

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.

________________________________________________________________
_



Although                   chaired the panel, in view of her 
unavailability -                  has agreed to sign as Acting 
Panel Chair.  The following members of the Board considered 
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-01267 in Executive Session on 
16 January 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                  , Vice Chair
	                  , Member
	                  , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-01267:

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Mar 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 7 Aug 13.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 13.
Exhibit E.  Letter, Letter, not dated.




                   
Acting Panel Chair

2

3