RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02811

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be retired at the rank of Chief Master Sergeant (E-9).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Several months after she was promoted to E-9, she was demoted to 
Senior Master Sergeant (E-8) because she did not have a nine 
skill level.  The Wing Commander and Command Chief were both 
told there was no method to promote a First Sergeant to E-9.  
This information turned out to be erroneous; there was a waiver 
process to promote to E-9 in the First Sergeant career field, a 
waiver package should have been submitted.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of 
Senior Master Sergeant (E-8) during the matter under review.  

On 1 May 11, according to the AF IMT 24, Recommendation and 
Authorization for Promotion of Airman as Reserve of the Air 
Force, the applicant was promoted to E-9.

On 4 Aug 11, according to the AF IMT 973, Request and 
Authorization for Change of Administrative Orders, the promotion 
was revoked as if it never occurred and removed from the 
applicant’s permanent record.

On 15 Jun 12, the applicant retired from the United States Air 
Force Reserve in the grade of Senior Master Sergeant (E-8). 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices 
of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibit 
C, D and G.    





AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/A1K recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or an injustice.  Air Force Reserve enlisted members are 
promoted under the authority of AFPD 36-25.  Promotion 
requirements to CMSgt requires a Primary Air Force Specialty 
Code (PAFSC) of a 9-skill level, as well as the member must have 
24 months’ time in grade (TIG), be a satisfactory participant in 
accordance with AFI 36-2254V1, along with being recommended for 
promotion by their supervisor and approved for promotion by the 
promotion authority.  In accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman 
Promotion Program, Table 8.2., Note 2, the Promotion Authority 
may waive the PAFSC skill level requirement for Airmen 
performing in a Special Duty Identifier (SDI), for example:  SDI 
8R000 Recruiter.  On reassignment from duty in SDI, Airman must 
qualify for the skill level required in Column B, within the 
time limits specified in AFI 36-2201, Volume 3.  The applicant 
would not have been able to keep the rank of CMSgt with a 
waiver, as there is not a waiver that pertains to the 
applicant’s case.  There is no waiver available to allow any 
member to be promoted to the rank of CMSgt without a 9-skill 
level in their PAFSC.  There is a waiver process for members 
being promoted in a special duty identifier where skill levels 
do not apply; however that is not the case here.  On 1 May 11, 
the member was erroneously promoted to CMSgt in the “2T2” career 
field.  The servicing Military Personnel Squadron (MPS) 
discovered she was ineligible and the member’s commander 
submitted a promotion revocation to the Command which was 
approved.  The applicant was not demoted, a revocation was 
processed which applies to members who were promoted, but later 
found to be ineligible for promotion as in the applicant’s case.  
An administrative error occurred allowing the applicant to be 
promoted, however, that is not a basis for allowing the member 
to keep the promotion when it was later determined she was not 
eligible for promotion.  

Complete copies of the AFRC/A1K evaluations are at Exhibits C, D 
and G.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant agrees with the facts as they are written.  In 
addition, she provides the following details.  The applicant’s 
Wing Commander asked for a resolution for the promotion to 
remain in place.  The commander was told that since the 
applicant was a ten year First Sergeant who did not hold a 9-
skill level she could not remain a CMSgt and that there was not 
a method for First Sergeants to be promoted to CMSgt.  The 
applicant’s Command Chief was told the same thing.    At a later 
date the applicant’s Command Chief learned that there is a 
waiver process for members in the position of a special duty 
(SDI) to apply and potentially obtain a waiver for the 9-skill 
level and be promoted to CMSgt.  The applicant feels she was 
unfairly demoted since she did not have the opportunity to 
submit a waiver package.  A complete copy of the rebuttal is at 
Exhibit F.  


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:  

The applicant’s MILPDS record was reviewed and noted as follows:  
16 Jan 03, member last held AFSC 2A671; 17 Jan 03, member was 
selected into a SDI 8F000 (First Sergeant); 1 Mar 11, member 
retrained into 2T2X0 career field.  In accordance with 
AFI    36-2101, Para 4.1.2.2 Enlisted Downgrade and Table 4.1 
Downgrading AFSC’s for Lack of Recent Performance, member’s 
2A671 AFSC was downgraded after six years due to lack of 
performance and then withdrawn after two additional years of 
nonperformance (para 4.1.2.3 Enlisted-Withdraw) when using Table 
4.1.  Member was out of the 2A6X1 career field for a total of 
8 years and 11 days.  Furthermore, member did not attend the 
required technical training and complete the career development 
course in the 294 days she was in the 2T2X0 career field to 
achieve the 9-skill level.  The applicant did not hold a 9-skill 
level in any AFSC; therefore, she cannot retain one.  

A complete copy of the AFRC/A1K additional evaluation is at 
Exhibit G.  


APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:  

As of this date, no response has been received by this office.  
(Exhibit H).  


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) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion 
the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis to recommend granting the requested 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-2014-02811 in Executive Session on 14 May 15, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-02811 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jul 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFRC/A1K, dated 10 Sep 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFRC/A1K, dated 30 Oct 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Jan 15.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated, 27 Jan 15.
	Exhibit G.  Memorandum, AFRC/A1K, dated 1 Apr 15.
      Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 15.