RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04555 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His promotion sequence number of 1680 to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) be reinstated. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In a two page memorandum, the applicant makes the following key contentions: 1. His promotion sequence number was cancelled upon review by members of the First Sergeant Academy Class 11H, rather than the entire promotion group, as it should have been. He took every step necessary to ensure that he competed in the correct Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC). He was advised by multiple individuals in two military personnel sections that his CAFSC was correct for testing. Personnel from his losing unit, the 633 Air Base Wing Formal Training Section, told him that an AF Form 2096 needed to be accomplished in order to change his CAFSC. However, they also told him that they could not process the form because he was not assigned to an 8F000 billet. 2. He was approved and selected for First Sergeant duty and attended the First Sergeant Academy (FSA) on 12 Sep 11. His graduation date of 30 Sep 11 was also the same date as the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for the 12E8 promotion cycle. 3. He was notified of his selection for promotion to SMSgt on 8 Mar 12 with a line number of 1680. 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. He and one other master sergeant were selected for promotion, but had their line numbers revoked. The two sergeants were approved to test in a supplemental cycle. He was informed that this came about because fellow first sergeants filed an official complaint that was targeted against him and the other sergeant. He was not selected for promotion by the 12E8 supplemental process; however, he never received notification of selection or non-selection. He contacted AFPC promotions on 10 Aug 12, one day after the supplemental results were published, and was told that he would have his name on the list if he was selected for promotion, but they could not confirm that he actually competed. 4. He believes that only the first sergeants were relooked at during this process. IAW the governing instructions, AFPC/DPSOE conducts data verification on promotion selects prior to the virtual promotion release. It also states that a data verification on promotion selects will be accomplished no later than 10 days after virtual promotion release and notifies the MPS when errors are identified. He was notified of the cancellation of his promotion well outside the 10-day verification period. 5. He does not believe he made an error; however, he believes that it was an Air Force system error. He complied with the test proctor instructions and brought to his attention that his CAFSC was wrong based on the instructions he read. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his Enlisted Data Verification Record (DVR), copies of his WAPS Score Notice, a copy of the 99 FSS/FSMPD letter, a copy of two unsigned letters from AFPC/DPSOE, copies of email communications, an extract from AFI 36-2113, Manpower and Personnel The First Sergeant, Chapter 9, and an extract from AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) in the grade of master sergeant (E-7). He attended the FSA from 12 Sep 11 through 30 Sep 11. On 10 Nov 11, the applicant signed AF IMT 1566, WAPS Test Verification, acknowledging he was scheduled to test for the 12E8 promotion cycle in the 3D1X2 CAFSC. The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an injustice. The applicant and 40 other service members attended the FSA in Sep 11. Of the twenty-two attendees that were eligible for promotion consideration during the contested promotion cycle, eight members, including the applicant, were inadvertently considered in the wrong AFSC. As a result, the applicant and one other member were erroneously selected for promotion. Upon discovery of the error, the applicant’s erroneous promotion selection was removed and the eight members who were considered in the wrong AFSC were given supplemental promotion consideration in the 8F000 AFSC. Members compete for promotion in the CAFSC they hold at the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD). The PECD for the 12E8 cycle was 30 Sep 11. At the PECD, the weighted airman promotion systems (WAPS) reflected the applicant’s CAFSC as 3D1X2; however, it should have reflected 8F000 (First Sergeant). In accordance with AFI 36-2101, Classifying Military Personnel (Officer and Enlisted), the effective date of the CAFSC (for retraining through a formal school [including special duty]) is the date the member departed their current duty station PCS or permanent change of assignment (PCA). There are no provisions for an individual to retain a promotion to which they were erroneously selected. However, supplemental consideration is afforded to members whose records were in error during the Central Selection Board process. The applicant was therefore provided supplemental consideration in the correct AFSC and was rendered a non-select. This action is fair and consistent with how similarly situated members have been treated. 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 prior to testing. He followed all instructions as were provided to him at the time. He believes it is an injustice to remove his line number as well as his non-selection during the supplemental promotion process. In this respect, under the supplemental process, he did not receive a board score to know what his standings were amongst his peers. He was only in the 8F000 career field for 22 days of which was time spent at the FSA. His records were not scored by the same board members as the other 8F000 eligibles. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ 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 an injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case and do not find it supports a determination that the applicant’s promotion to senior master sergeant should be reinstated. In this respect, it appears the applicant’s promotion selection removal was appropriately executed in accordance with governing directives. While we note that the applicant was selected for promotion under an erroneous CAFSC, upon discovery of the error, the applicant along with the other members who were considered in the wrong AFSC were given supplemental promotion consideration. We sympathize with the applicant’s situation, however, in the absence of evidence showing he was treated differently from others similarly situated, we find no 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04555 in Executive Session on 23 Jul 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2012- 04555 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Sep 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 29 Oct 12. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Nov 12. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Dec 12