RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-01346
	
	 		COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  YES


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be rescored for promotion to master sergeant (Cycle 
13E7) with the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), dated 
18 February 2010.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The AFCM she earned in February 2010 was not entered into the 
Virtual Military Personnel Flight (vMPF).  In the past, she solely 
trusted vMPF to keep track of her decorations.  She did not 
realize the decoration was not updated in vMPF.  On 10 December 
2013, she confirmed the error and submitted a supplemental 
promotion request through the Military Personnel Section (MPS); 
however, that request was denied.  She takes responsibility for 
not realizing the error sooner.  

She knows that she is responsible for verifying and updating her 
records; however, she does not feel she should be penalized for 
not being properly educated on this process.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is active duty Air Force serving in the grade of 
master sergeant.  She was awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal 
(second Oak Leaf Cluster) for the period of 10 December 2004  
through 1 February 2010, with a given under my hand date of 
18 February 2010.  She was promoted to the grade of master 
sergeant on 1 December 2014.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial.  A review of the applicant's 
record reflects that she was awarded the AFCM on 18 February 
2010 and it was filed in her records on 23 March 2010.  
However, as of the select date for cycle 13E7, 7 May 2013, the 
decoration had not been updated in the Military Personnel Data 
System (MilPDS) by the servicing MPS.

The first time the decoration would have been used in the 
promotion process was cycle 12E7 to master sergeant.  The 
applicant was considered and nonselected for promotion to master 
sergeant during cycle 12E7.  She received a decoration score of 
12.00, her total score was 291.66, and the score required for 
selection in her Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 317.50.  
Had the decoration (worth 3 points) been updated in the system 
for this cycle, she would remain a nonselect, as her total score 
would increase to 294.66.

The applicant was considered and nonselected for promotion to 
master sergeant during cycle 13E7.  Her decoration score was 
12.00, her total score was 326.66, and the score required for 
selection in her AFSC was 327.20.  Should the Board grant the 
applicant’s request and direct the AFCM be used in the promotion 
process for 13E7, she would become a select pending data 
verification and the recommendation of her commander.

AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Program, paras 2.7.6.2 and 
2.8, states airmen obtain and review Data Verification Records 
(DVRs) along with score notices on the vMPF, review electronic 
record in Automated Record Management System (ARMS) to 
ensure data is correct and notify the appropriate MPS work 
center or agency for correction of any errors.  Supplemental 
promotion consideration will not be granted if the error or 
omission appeared on/in the Airman 's DVR, ARMS record, or 
senior NCO selection folder and no corrective or follow-up action 
was taken by the Airman prior to the promotion selection date 
for staff sergeant through master sergeant.  Had the 
applicant been verifying her record prior to promotion cycles as 
she is instructed/required to do, she would have discovered it 
was missing beginning with cycle 12E7.  However, the applicant 
did not report a problem with the AFCM until she missed 
promotion during cycle 13E7 by less than one point.

All member’s eligible for promotion consideration also receive 
and/or have access to the Enlisted Program Fact Sheet.  This 
document emphasizes the importance of personnel involvement, the 
importance of the DVR and that it is provided for personnel to 
ensure their promotion record is complete and accurate and it 
states it is the member’s responsibility to verify all data on the 
DVR along with reviewing ARMS to ensure all documents are filed 
accordingly.

The applicant was aware of the decoration and does not state that 
she inquired about it during the data verification process for 
past cycles.  She provides no evidence indicating she started 
actively pursuing the update of the documentation until after 
selections were announced for cycle 13E7 and she realized she 
missed promotion by less than one point.  

A complete copy of the DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit B.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 29 September 2014, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C).  As of this date, this office has received no 
response.


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 injustice.  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) that it appears she did not exercise due diligence to ensure 
her record was accurate prior to her record meeting promotion to 
master sergeant cycle 13E7.  Therefore, we adopt their rationale 
as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been a 
victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence to 
the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting 
the requested relief.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will 
materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.



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-2014-01346 in Executive Session on 12 March 2015, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
	
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-01346 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Mar 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 30 Apr 14.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Sep 14.