RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01267 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-6) effective the first promotion cycle he tested without his 7- skill level. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He held the 7-skill level in his Primary Air Force Specialty Code (PAFSC) at the time of his discharge; however, his DD Form 214, reflects his PAFSC at the 5-skill level. His Personal Information File was deliberately tampered with to inhibit him being promoted to the next higher grade (TSgt). As a result, the elimination of his 7-skill level greatly reduced his ability to be selected for Civil Service. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement and copies of an Extension Course Institute card indicating his completion of his 5-skill level AFSC, and a Military Personnel Data System record print-out reflecting his 7-skill level PAFSC as 3E471. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served on active duty from 22 June 1981 to 30 June 2001. He served as a Utilities Systems Craftsman and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) (E-5) effective 1 April 1988. The applicant was awarded the PAFSC 56671 in the Environmental Support career field, on 20 December 1988. This AFSC converted to 3E471 as a part of the 31 October 1993 AFSC conversion. The applicant was considered for promotion to TSgt eleven times before retiring in the grade of SSgt after serving 20 years and 9 days on active duty. The first time he was eligible for consideration to TSgt was promotion cycle 91A6. He tested for cycle 91A6 on 26 February 1990 and took the Skills Knowledge Test (SKT) for promotion in AFSC 56671. His total weighted score was 264.91 and the score required for promotion selection in his Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) was 318.23. The remaining relevant facts, extracted from his military service records, are contained in the evaluation by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states that since the applicant received his 7-skill level on 20 December 1988, it would be impossible to consider him for promotion for any earlier E-6 promotion cycles as he was not time-in-grade eligible prior to promotion cycle 91A6. Members are assigned a PAFSC based on upgrade training and test for promotion based on their skill level. Members compete for promotion in the CAFSC they hold as of the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECOD) for a particular cycle. The CAFSC is based on rank; therefore, the applicant’s CAFSC was 56651 since he held the grade of SSgt. Test answer sheets are scored against a score key that is electronically programmed into the scanner for a particular AFSC and cycle. If the applicant’s test answer sheet had been scored against the 56651 score key, as he asserts, the test would have been rejected and been rescored against the 56671 score key. All SSgts eligible for promotion to TSgt in the applicant’s AFSC, took the 56671 test since they had a 7-skill level. However, they compete against one another based on their CAFSC 56651 since their current grade is SSgt. The PAFSC indicates which skill level test is administered and the CAFSC indicates which grade they are competing against. In regard to the applicant’s request to correct his PAFSC on his DD Form 214, they have issued a DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, to reflect his PAFSC as “3E471-Utilities Systems Craftsman.” AFPC/DPSOR notified the applicant on 20 June 2013 of the correction and forwarded him a copy of the DD Form 215. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He was deliberately held back during his career. He was harassed at every turn by higher authority appointed over him. He was placed in positions where he was over-scrutinized by his superiors and received lower ratings on his Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) than he deserved. He made mistakes during his career as most people do, but for him his mistakes were held against him throughout his Air Force career when most are forgiven and allowed to succeed. He is only asking for promotion to TSgt, a grade he would have been able to achieve if he were given the same opportunities as his peers and if he had been treated fairly. The applicant’s compete rebuttal 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 error or an injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case to include his contentions that he was deliberately held back from promotion; however, the applicant has not provided any evidence to support his claim. Therefore, 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice in regard to the requested promotion. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the applicant’s request for promotion to technical sergeant. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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. ________________________________________________________________ _ Although chaired the panel, in view of her unavailability - has agreed to sign as Acting Panel Chair. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-01267 in Executive Session on 16 January 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Vice Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-01267: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Mar 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 7 Aug 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 13. Exhibit E. Letter, Letter, not dated. 2 3 4