RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03978
		INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered for promotion to master sergeant (MSgt) using the same version of the Promotion Fitness Examination (PFE) as that given to his peers.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The version of the PFE that he was given was incorrect.  He is concerned about the fairness of competing for promotion using a different test than his peers.

In support of his appeal applicant has provided a copy of a memorandum he wrote to his Military Personnel Flight (MPF) recounting the sequence of events that led to his being tested using the incorrect version of the PFE.  His memorandum was indorsed by his unit commander who stated that he was concerned about the apparent inequities the applicant had to endure in his pursuit to be promoted.  The commander stated that the applicant should be tested again.  The applicant also provides statements from other individuals that tested the same day and corroborate that the applicant questioned whether he was taking the correct version of the PFE.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was scheduled to test for promotion to MSgt for cycle 02E7.  He was mistakenly administered the wrong PFE.  When he questioned the test monitor about it, he was told that he should continue taking the incorrect version and that it would not affect his score.  He was advised that there was a method for scoring when an incorrect version of the PFE is taken.

Additional facts relevant to this case are contained in the evaluation prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force found at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  They state that action taken in the applicant’s case was consistent with established procedures and handled properly ensuring the applicant competed fairly for promotion without an unfair disadvantage or advantage.

The applicant was administered the wrong test.  However, there is a method for equitably scoring the test when the incorrect version has been administered.

In order to increase test security, in 1999 the Air Force began using multiple test versions of the PFE and United States Supervisory Examination (USAFSE).  Since members compete for promotion by Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), everyone in an AFSC is required to take the same version of the test.  There are occasional instances where a member takes a different version because the member was confused about their control AFSC due to retraining, restructure of an AFSC, etc.  For fairness, test scores within an AFSC need to be comparable.  When a member takes a different version than the others competing for promotion in his or her AFSC, the incorrect test version is equated through a scientific process, which allows the scores on two different versions to be compared.  The process accounts for the differences in test difficulty and computes what a member’s score would have been had they taken the correct version.  The equated scores are scientifically accurate, equitable, and legally defensible.

The different versions of the PFE and USAFSE are content equivalent (because they are based on the same outline) but not parallel (different versions of the same test do not have the same means and standard deviation).  Equating procedures allows the Air Force to derive a score from the wrong test based on the correct mean and standard deviation, which makes the score comparable to the others.  AFPC/DPPPWB provides an explanation of “mean” and standard deviation and how the process works.

To require an individual who has taken one test to retest creates inequities.  Individuals who don’t retest believe those that get to retest have an inherent advantage because they get to test a second time.  Those individuals required to retest believe they are at a disadvantage because they have to prepare to test again in a more limited timeframe.  Although the results of an examinee that took the wrong test are based on a different test, the results are scientifically equivalent and can be fairly compared to the results from the correct test.  No one is required to test a second time.

The complete 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 14 Feb 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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 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 their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 Docket Number BC-2002-03978 in Executive Session on 7 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Dec 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 7 Jan 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.