RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-01764
INDEX CODE:  131.00
	Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx				COUNSEL: NONE
								HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His promotion sequence number (PSN) to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-6), which would have incremented on 1 Dec 07 for cycle 07E6, be reinstated.  
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 11 Jun 07, he was deployed to Iraq for a 4-month tour.  During his deployment he was notified he had been selected for promotion to technical sergeant.  For the duration of his tour, he stepped up and began to learn his duties as a technical sergeant and how to be a more effective leader/supervisor.  On 23 Oct 07, he was notified that his decoration points were in question and that he needed to show proof of the decorations he had received.  The MPF showed he had two Air Force Commendation Medals (AFCM) and one Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) when it should have been vice versa.  When his records were corrected to reflect the correct decorations, he missed the promotion selection by .46 points.  He was led to believe he had received a promotion and feels that stripping him of this promotion would be like punishing him for bad conduct.  It would be an embarrassment for him as well as humiliating to his personal life.  At this point, he feels there is no way he can return to his duty as staff sergeant without losing face with all the airmen.  

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, supporting letters to include his commander's supporting letter, a copy of his congratulatory letter and other associated documents relating to his promotion.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) indicates the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of staff sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Sep 01.  

The applicant was tentatively selected for promotion to the grade of TSgt during cycle 07E6 with a PSN of 2441.0., which would have incremented on 1 Dec 07.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial.  DPSOE states that when the applicant was initially considered, the promotion file at AFPC (based on updates from the MPF), reflected he had two AFCMs and one AFAM when, in fact, he had one AFCM and two AFAMs.  Based on the erroneous data, he was given a decoration score of 7.00 making his total score 292.33 (above the required score for selection of 290.79).  When he was reconsidered with the correct decorations, his decoration score became 5.00 with a total score of 290.33 (below the 290.79 required for selection).  

DPSOE advises that verification of promotion data, before and after consideration for promotion, is essential in order to maintain the credibility of the Weighted Airman Promotion System.  One key aspect of the "selection for promotion" notification procedures is that commanders are permitted to announce selections to individuals as "tentative" prior to the MPF officials completing the detailed data verification process.  HQ AFPC/DPP instructed MPFs to remind commanders to advise selectees their selection was tentative until the data verification process was completed and the member's score notice is received.  DPSOE advises that there are over 30,000 individuals tentatively selected for promotion annually.  Of this number, approximately 35 must be removed from the selection list because of data errors.  The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit B.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 27 Jun 08 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.  

_________________________________________________________________

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 its 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-2008-01764 in Executive Session on 28 Aug 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
			XXXXXXXXXX, Member
			XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2008-01764 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Apr 08, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 10 Jun 08.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jun 08.

                                  XXXXXXXXXX
                                  Panel Chair