RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03318
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. The effective date of his Control Air Force Specialty Code
(CAFSC) be changed from 18 Jan 2011 to 9 Aug 2011. (Admin
Corrected)
2. He receive supplemental promotion consideration to the grade
of technical sergeant (TSgt, E-6), in his CAFSC. (Admin
Corrected)
3. On 6 Nov 2012, the applicant amended his application to
request that he be promoted to the grade of TSgt.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The effective date of his AFSC was changed without his
knowledge. Had he been under the correct AFSC, he would have
been selected for promotion based on the 12E6 testing cycle
Specialty Knowledge Training (SKT) scores.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
In a 20 Aug 2012 memorandum to the applicant, AFPC/DPSIDC
determined that the effective date for his CAFSC should have
been 9 Aug 2010. Administrative correction of his official
military personnel record has been completed by AFPC/DPSIDC.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of
the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these
facts in this Record of Proceedings.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE states that after DPSIDCs correction of his record
to reflect his CAFSC was effective 9 Aug 2010, his request for
supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 11E6 in the
2TOX1 AFSC was also approved. Although his total score met the
cutoff score required for selection during cycle 11E6 in the
2TOX1 AFSC, his commander nonrecommended his promotion based
on an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) that was established
due his three Fitness Assessment (FA) failures.
The complete DPSOE evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In further support of his request, the applicant provides a
personal statement and voluminous documents asserting how he was
adversely impacted by the administrative actions taken against
him. Notwithstanding the correction to his records, the
applicant asserts he would have been promoted to TSgt effective
1 Jan 2012 had his CAFSC been correctly reflected in his
records.
The applicants complete response, with attachments, 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 error or injustice. We note that
the applicants effective date of his CAFSC was corrected and he
received supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of
TSgt in his CAFSC and was selected. However, due to his three
failed FAs his commander nonrecommended him for promotion to the
grade of TSgt. The applicant is now contending that had his
CAFSC been correctly reflected in his records in Aug 2010, he
would have been promoted to the grade of TSgt in Jan 2012.
After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the
applicants contentions, we are not persuaded that relief is
warranted. In this respect, we note that in Aug 2010, the same
three failed FAs that formed the basis for his nonrecommendaiton
for promotion to the grade of TSgt in Oct 12 still existed in
Jan 2012. As such, we conclude that the applicant has failed to
sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered either
an error or an 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 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 this application
in Executive Session on 9 May 2013, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-03318:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Jul 2012, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 5 Oct 2012, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 2012.
Exhibit E. Letters, Applicant, dated 6 Nov 2012, w/atchs
and 29 Jan 2013, w/atchs.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 02579
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C, D, G and H. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends the applicants request to have his leave restored be granted. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants request...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04746
The first time the contested report was used in the promotion process was cycle 11E6. The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 23 Mar 2012, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00264
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00264 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. As a result of the failed FAs, his projected promotion to the grade of SSgt was cancelled and he received a referral EPR. Although DPSOE initially recommended denial of the applicants request to be supplementally considered for promotion to...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00595
If an individual performed duties in a secondary AFSC, it might be reflected in one of the EPRs or decorations, or in the duty history; however, a secondary AFSC has never been reflected as a separate entry on the SNCO evaluation brief. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 19 Aug 11 for review and...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02569
DPSOE states members cannot test in an Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) for which they are no longer assigned. After returning from deployment, the applicant was scheduled and tested PFE only on 24 Feb 10 for cycle 10E6 in CAFSC 3D1X2 based on the AFSC conversion. 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 and adopt its rationale as the basis...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02082
His Nurse Enlisted Commissioning Program (NECP) scholarship be reinstated. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits B, C and D. 2 ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAMN recommends denial of the applicant’s requests to have his NECP scholarship reinstated and that his DD...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04555
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. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01267
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. Members compete for promotion in the CAFSC they hold as of the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECOD) for a...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02775
________________________________________________________________ On 7 Jan 14, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) disapproved the applicants request for removal of his failed FAs from the AFFMS stating that he should have tested within the limits of his profile. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the request for removal of the failed FAs dated 4 Apr 11 and 14 Nov 11 due to the lack of supporting...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02310
Not every IDMT-qualified member was identified, mostly because they were not in an IDMT position. Only those individuals assigned to an IDMT 4N0X1C CAFSC position at the time of the conversion were considered for promotion as an IDMT in the CY05 cycle. As to whether some individuals were incorrectly promoted because they were “lucky” enough to be identified in the wrong CAFSC, promotion selections are “tentative pending verification by the MPF” (AFI 36-2502) and airmen are not “to...