RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00322
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reinstated to Active Duty (AD) and promoted to the grade
of Staff Sergeant (SSgt) with a date of rank and effective date
of 1 Nov 14.
He receive all pay and allowances as if he were promoted on 1
Nov 14 and did not leave AD.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
On 14 Jan 15, the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) notified him
they found an error in his record, stating he was selected for
promotion to SSgt with a line number of 1864.9. AFPC indicated
he could petition to be reinstated to AD and receive back-pay
and allowances.
Had the error not occurred, he would have been notified of his
promotion in Jul 14 and not separated from AD in Nov 14. In
support of his request, he provides a notification letter from
the Chief of Enlisted Promotions, an updated Weighted Airman
Promotion System (WAPS) score notice and an AFPC promotion
certification memorandum.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 6 Jan 09, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.
On 14 Jan 15, AFPC/DPSOE sent the applicant a memorandum
informing him his promotion during the 14E5 cycle was reviewed
during a January 2015 in-system supplemental process. This
process review discovered the applicant was selected for
promotion to SSgt. Additionally, this memorandum informed the
applicant to petition the AFBCMR for correction of his record.
On 5 Jan 15, the applicant was released from active duty. He
was credited with 6 years of active service.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
described in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of
primary responsibility (OPR), which are included at Exhibits C,
D and E.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE certifies the applicant was promoted to SSgt during
the Jan 15 in-system supplemental. His promotion was a result
of an audit conducted on the enlisted promotion process where
AFPC identified a software issue with the automated scanner used
to score WAPS tests. The issue caused the scanner to misscore
his Promotion Fitness Examination (PFE) and/or Specialty
Knowledge Test.
Once the error was identified and corrected, it was determined
that the applicant exceeded the required cutoff score for
promotion to SSgt. Based on his promotion sequence number,
1864.9, he should have been promoted to SSgt effective 1 Nov 14.
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOR recommends approval. According to the enlisted
promotions office (AFPC/DPSOE) memorandum, the applicant was
promoted to the grade of SSgt on the Jan 15 in-system
supplemental promotion cycle. This was the result of an audit
that was conducted which identified an error by software used to
score the promotion exam. Although initially informed that he
had not been promoted to the higher grade, the resulting audit
revealed that he did indeed exceed the minimum score required
for promotion.
It is DPSORs opinion the applicants separation be nullified
and he be reinstated back into the Air Force under the new rank
of SSgt.
The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D.
AFPC/DPAA recommends the applicant be reinstated on AD. The
member is a fully trained 2A651A (Aerospace Propulsion
Journeyman). The manning in the Aerospace Propulsion career
field supports his retention in the Air Force.
The complete DPAA evaluation is at Exhibit E.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 11 Feb 15 for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit F). As of this date, no response has been received by
this office.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by
existing law or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Sufficient 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 and 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 been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, we recommend the applicant's records be corrected as
indicated below.
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that the
applicant did not separate on 5 Jan 15, but remained on active
duty and promoted to the grade of staff sergeant, effective 1
Nov 14, and is entitled to all pay and allowances associated
with assuming the higher grade.
All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The
following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2015-00322 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jan 15, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 26 Jan 15.
Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 30 Jan 15.
Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFPC/DPAA, dated 9 Feb 15.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Feb 15.
AF | BCMR | CY2015 | BC 2015 00270
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00270 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to Active Duty (AD) and promoted to the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt) with a date of rank and effective date of 1 Oct 14. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are...
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-2011-03804
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 2 Sep 11, while deployed in Afghanistan, he looked at his promotion data in the vMPF and noticed his promotion information changed and his official score was above the cutoff. He believes receiving a new score notice in the vMPF constitutes his promotion notification and requests the Board honor this notification of promotion. _________________________________________________________________ THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03124
He was not given his Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) study material in a timely manner to prepare for his promotion test. The Promotion Eligibility Cut-Off Date (PECD) for promotion cycle 13E5 was 31 Mar 13. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03655
His career suffered due to having to appeal for 352 days to get an enlisted performance report (EPR) removed from his records by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB). The applicant’s supplemental promotion score was 320.07. CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2006-03655 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation,...
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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 00197
The applicant has not provided documentation from his unit commander or primary care manager for invalidating the FA, nor did he provide the specific FA failure. The applicant held the grade of SSgt on the date of his retirement; therefore, his record correctly reflects his retired grade as SSgt. On 11 Dec 13, the Secretary of the Air Force found the applicant served satisfactorily in the grade of TSgt and ordered his advancement to the grade of TSgt when his time on active duty and his...
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-2012-04555
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 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...