RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03197 INDEX CODE:	131.01

COUNSEL:	NONE HEARING DESIRED:	YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be given supplemental consideration for promotion to technical sergeant (TSgt) for cycle 08E6.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was miscounseled regarding the material to be tested on during the 08E6 Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) cycle.

He was told by his Military Personnel Flight (MPF) and Commander’s Support Staff (CSS) that he would be taking both the Promotion Fitness Examination (PFE) (general knowledge questions
i.e. standards, dress & appearance, AF history etc.) and the Skills Knowledge Test (SKT) (questions pertaining to the airman’s particular Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) for cycle 08E6, despite his questions and protests.

The miscounseling resulted in him being at a competitive disadvantage with his peers due to him studying his Career Development Courses (CDCs) in preparation for the SKT. Otherwise he would have spent extra time studying the Professional Development Guide (PDG) for the PFE.

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of an email from the AFPC Testing office, an AF IMT 2096, Classification/On- the-Job Training Action, AF IMT 1566, WAPS Test Verification, a medical retraining recommendation, and a Memorandum pertaining to the applicant’s WAPS testing.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt).

On 23 Apr 07, he was disqualified (medical) from AFSC 2A7X3 and placed into Primary Air Force Specialty Code (PAFSC) 9A000.

He was considered for promotion to TSgt for cycle 08E6 in Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 00XXX, with a SKT exemption—PFE only, and not selected. His total score was 263.69 and the score required for selection in his AFSC was 316.36.

Since the update had not been made by his servicing MPF to the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS), the applicant’s data verification record (DVR), WAPS Test Verification, and the WAPS file all showed that he was being considered in AFSC 2A7X3 for cycle 08E6. He tested PFE and SKT in AFSC 2A7X3, but when the tests were scanned, they rejected as the WAPS file had then been updated to reflect the correct AFSC (00XXX)—PFE only.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial, and stated, in part, current policies and procedures were followed to ensure the applicant was considered for promotion in the correct AFSC. The applicant’s allegation of miscounseling has not been substantiated based on the documentation he has provided. It is ultimately the applicant’s responsibility to know his eligibility status, the study references required, how he will be considered (with both the PFE and SKT or the PFE only), and when he will test.

There are no provisions that would allow any individual an automatic promotion to TSgt or any other grade, or allow an individual to compete for promotion in an AFSC to which they were not assigned. However, for informational purposes only, DPSOE hand-scored the applicant’s SKT, applied that score (30) to his PFE (39.93) as well as his four other weighted factors which gave him a total score of 253.76. Had the applicant been considered in his previous AFSC, he would have been rendered a nonselect as the score required for selection was 299.84.

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 7 Nov 08, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 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.
1.	
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.

4.	The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

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-2008-03197 in Executive Session on 17 Dec 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair Member
Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2008-03197 was considered:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 6 Aug 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 19 Sep 08. Exhibit C.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Nov 08.

Panel Chair