RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03124
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His Training Status Code (TSC) be corrected to reflect K
(student in training) versus B (qualified member) at the time
of his arrival to Cannon AFB, NM.
2. He be reconsidered for promotion to the grade of Staff
Sergeant (SSgt) with a Skills Knowledge Test (SKT) exemption for
the 13E5 promotion cycle.
3. His corrected record receives supplemental promotion
consideration for the 13E5 promotion cycle.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He should have been given TSC K upon arrival to his first duty
station. He was not given his Weighted Airman Promotion System
(WAPS) study material in a timely manner to prepare for his
promotion test.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
According to the applicants military personnel records, on
23 Mar 10, he enlisted in the Regular Air Force and is currently
serving in the grade of SSgt.
According to an AF IMT 2096, Classification/On-The-Job Training
Action, dated 11 Dec 13, the applicant met all requirements for
upgrade to the 5-skill level in 1A8X1 (Direct Support Operator)
career field.
According to the applicants military personnel records, on
1 Mar 15, he was promoted to the grade of SSgt.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial, indicating the applicant has not
provided any evidence or supporting documentation that he
elevated his concerns about his 13E5 promotion consideration or
his access to study reference material until 6 Jul 14, well
after the promotion selects were announced on 1 Aug 13. On
16 Oct 12, the applicant arrived at his duty station and was
assigned as a Direct Support Operator (1A8X1). The Promotion
Eligibility Cut-Off Date (PECD) for promotion cycle 13E5 was
31 Mar 13. On 14 May 13, the applicant tested on both the
Promotion Fitness Examination (PFE) and SKT for promotion to the
grade of SSgt for cycle 13E5 in Control Air Force Specialty Code
(CAFSC) 1A8X1. His combined PFE and SKT score was 279.83 and
the required score for selection in his AFSC was 283.50. The
applicant claims he was not issued all study reference
materials; however, his career field is a classified AFSC and
therefore, members must study for their SKT in a Sensitive
Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). Additionally, the
applicant also signed an AF Form 1566, WAPS Test Verification,
acknowledging receipt of/access to study reference materials.
It is ultimately the applicants responsibility to know his
eligibility status, the study references required, how he will
be considered (PFE and SKT or PFE only), and when he will test.
These factors are a critical part of the promotion process. All
eligible are instructed to verify their CAFSC and the testing
requirements for that CAFSC in the Enlisted Promotions
References and Requirements Catalog (EPRRC). Lastly, the
applicant was considered and selected for promotion in CAFSC
1A8X1 for cycle 14E5 after testing both PFE and SKT.
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 2 Feb 15 for review and comment within 30 days. As
of this date, no response has been received by this office
(Exhibit D).
________________________________________________________________
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 applicants 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 the rationale expressed as the basis for our
conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or
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 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-2014-03124 in Executive Session on 8 Apr 15, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Jul 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 14 Oct 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Feb 15.
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 | 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 | CY2013 | BC 2012 05819
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05819 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her current Date of Rank (DOR) be changed to reflect that she was promoted during cycle 09E5 rather than Cycle 10E5. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommended denial of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02799
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advised that the applicant was erroneously considered, tested, and selected for promotion to MSgt during cycle 05E7 in AFSC 2T1X1. Based on the 14 Dec 04 promotion testing notification, and data listed in the MilPDS and the WAPS, the applicant was erroneously considered, tested, and selected for promotion in his 2T AFSC to MSgt during cycle 05E7. We therefore recommend he be provided...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01137
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial due to the untimely filing of this application. He had a date for promotion to SSgt under the WAPS system in 1970, and if he had reenlisted he would have been promoted. Due to the fact that he was not awarded the PH and AFCM in 2009 and 2010, timing...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03527
In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of a screen shot of her Training Status Code from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS), an excerpt from AFI 36-2502 Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, her Weighted Airman Promotion System Score Notice, and an AF IMT 330, Records Transmittal/Request. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the Air Force Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPR), which are attached at...
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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-02874
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicants military records are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AETC/DPSOE states they are unable to provide test results/score notice for cycle 02E7 as the applicant was never considered for promotion because he did not take the required Specialty Knowledge Test...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00588
To be considered for promotion to E-5 an individual must have had a minimum of 18 months time-in-grade (TIG), a skill level commensurate with their Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), and be recommended by the commander. To be considered for promotion to TSgt, an individual must have 18 months TIG as a SSgt, possess a 7-skill level, have a current PFE and SKT score, and be recommended by the promotion authority. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 01472
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit H. AFLOA/JAJM addresses the applicants nonjudicial punishment (Article 15), and determines the applicants commander did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in making the decision to punish the applicant under Article 15. In addition, while the Board notes the applicant was denied the opportunity to test for promotion during the 10E5 promotion cycle, the fact she did not test also constitutes a harmless error because she was not...