RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03286
		INDEX CODE:  131.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 26 February 2003 Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) test be verified.

NOTE:  The applicant tested for promotion to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) during promotion cycle 03E7.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

An error may have occurred during the scoring of his Specialty Knowledge Test (SKT) based on questions being deleted.  In addition, the score he received does not reflect the time and effort he put into getting promoted to E-7.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement and a copy of his WAPS score notice.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) reveals the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as 8 March 1984.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), with an effective date and date of rank of 1 May 1999.  Applicant's Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) profile for the last five reporting periods follows:

		Period Ending	Evaluation

		  15 Dec 99	5 - Immediate Promotion
		  15 Dec 00	5
		  15 Dec 01	4 - Ready for Promotion
		  15 Dec 02	5
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application be denied.  DPPPWB states that the applicant received a score of 54.17 on the SKT for cycle 03E7.  His total promotion score was 317.01 and the score required for selection in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 330.39.  The applicant has tested two other times for promotion to E-7 and received an SKT score of 32.63 for cycle 01E7 and 44.32 for cycle 02E7.

DPPPWB indicates that four questions were deleted from the applicant’s SKT for cycle 03E7 because they were faulty.  The applicant’s score was derived from the remaining 96 scorable items, of which he answered 52 correctly for a final promotion score of 54.17.  Test answer sheets are computer scored and verification requirements are stringent--accurate results are absolutely critical.  Many safeguards were established--high-quality paper and printing of the answer sheets, a specially designed optical scanner and a complex series of crosschecks.  The validation process is designed to detect every condition that would cause inaccuracies.  As a continuing part of AFPC’s quality control procedures, a random sample of tests is hand-scored each cycle and the results compared against the computer score.  Since the WAPS was approved by the Secretary of the Air Force on 3 July 1968, over 50,000 tests have been manually scored and the results compared against the computer score.  Not once has AFPC found the computer score in error.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 31 October 2003 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________

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 have seen no evidence of inappropriate action on the part of the Air Force.  Although the applicant believes there may have been a scoring error, we note that the WAPS testing process is very stringent and has many safeguards in order to detect inaccuracies.  We therefore agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  In view of the above and absent 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 this application in Executive Session on 14 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-03286.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Sep 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 9 Oct 03.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.