RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02341

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His selection for promotion to the grade of Master Sergeant (MSgt/E-7) during the 12E7 promotion cycle be reinstated. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His promotion was unjustly taken from him due to AFPC’s failure to notify him of an error affecting his selection within the 10-day period required by AFI 36-2502, Airmen Promotion/Demotion Programs.  On 17 May 12, he was notified of his promotion to MSgt.  Over four months later he was informed that two of his decorations were not available in his file for review.  On 22 Oct 12, over five months after the selection date, he was notified one of those two decorations could not be counted toward promotion because it’s inclusive dates were outside the required cut-off date for the board.  AFI 36-2502 clearly states “AFPC/DPSOE conducts data verification on selects NLT ten days after virtual promotion release and notifies MPS when errors are identified.”  It also states promotion is tentative on the next ten days after notification.  Therefore, after the ten-day period without receiving notification, his promotion was no longer tentative.  The fact that it took five months to notify him, rather than the required ten days is an injustice.  He was put at a disadvantage because he thought he no longer needed to study for promotion during that five month period, while those he competed against were preparing themselves for the next test.  In addition, he purchased a new home based upon the pay raise from the promotion.  He has written his Congressman twice, without resolution.  

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

________________________________________________________________




STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6).

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

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an injustice.  Reinstating the applicant’s erroneous promotion to MSgt is not appropriate as his total score is below that required for selection.  The applicant was considered and erroneously selected for promotion to MSgt during cycle 12E7 based upon information in the applicant’s file which he was required to validate as true prior to the selection board.  When the applicant was considered, the promotion file at AFPC reflected he had three Air Force Commendation Medals (AFCM) (worth three points each).  Based upon this incorrect data, he was selection for promotion.  However, during the data verification phase at AFPC, two of his three AFCMs were not in his master personnel file.  When a copy of the decorations were received, it was discovered that the close out date for one of his AFCMs was 2 Apr 12, which is after the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD) for this cycle.  Since the points associated with that AFCM had to be removed from his total score, the applicant became a non-select for promotion.  AFI 36-2502 dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close out date of the decoration must be on or before the PECD.  The PECD for cycle 12E7 was 31 Dec 11.  The AFCM used to select him for promotion closed out on 2 Apr 12.  It is ultimately the member’s responsibility to verify his data and identify any discrepancies prior to the selection process.  Eligibles are given a copy of the information that will be used in the promotion process, and it is their responsibility to identify any errors and have them corrected.  The document eligibles receive specifically states “IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY ALL DATA ON YOUR DVR IS CORRECT.”  The data verification process at headquarters level is a secondary measure.  In accordance with AFI 36-2502, if a member is selected based on erroneous information, and when reconsidered with the correct data the total score falls below the required for promotion, the member’s name is removed from the selection list.  Although the process of notifying the applicant in a timely manner failed, it does not change the fact that his score was not sufficient to meet the cutoff score required for selection.  To grant the applicant’s request would not be fair or equitable to the other individuals in the applicant’s AFSC who have a higher score but cannot be promoted because their total score is below that needed for selection. 
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He acknowledges it was his responsibility to conduct his own review of his records and states that he is not an expert in this area and misunderstood how the cutoff date is used.  In addition, he reiterates that the injustice was AFPC’s late notification because it caused stress and financial hardship, and reduced his opportunity for promotion on the next cycle because he failed to study for the months on which he was on the promotion list, and missed promotion on the next cycle by 14 points (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 applicant’s erroneous promotion selection should be reinstated.  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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant is the victim of an injustice.  The applicant argues he should be allowed to retain his erroneous promotion selection, even though he was erroneously selected due to inaccuracies in his records, because the post-selection board data verification process failed to meet the timelines set forth in AFI 36-2502.  While the Board acknowledges the failure to meet the prescribed timeliness of the post-selection board data verification process, that error in and of itself, is insufficient for us to recommend granting the requested relief as doing so would bestow promotion upon the applicant who was not otherwise qualified.  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 or that were it not for the delay in notification, he would have been selected for promotion in the subsequent promotion cycle.  Furthermore, 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.  In addition, approval of this request would constitute a greater injustice to other Air Force members who met the same promotion selection board and were equally or more qualified than the applicant but not selected for promotion.  Finally, given the multiple factors which contribute to the selection of Air Force enlisted members for promotion, the applicant has provided insufficient evidence for us to come to the inescapable conclusion that his inability to be selected for promotion on ensuing promotion boards was caused by the untimeliness of the data verification process.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief.  

________________________________________________________________

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-2013-02341 in Executive Session on 6 Mar 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 May 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 12 Jun 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jul 13.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Aug 13. 




                                   
                                   Panel Chair