RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03389

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His promotion line number to Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt) be reinstated, his promotion date corrected to reflect appropriate date of the line number, and he receive all lost pay and allowances.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His wing personnel specialists changed his Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) to reflect the duty position he was moved into on 2 June 2014, which was done in accordance with the governing instructions.  The position was on the Unit Manpower Document (UMD), however, it was not funded (there was no mention of that requirement reflected in the governing instructions).  His promotion package was boarded under his new CAFSC, 8I000, and he was selected for promotion to the grade of CMSgt.  AFPC/DPSOE sent a notification to the base (not to him, which was in violation of the governing instructions) that stated he was in an unfunded position and that his CAFSC should not of changed.  The notification went on to state that he should have been promotion boarded in his former CAFSC, 2A690, and as such his line number was going to be invalidated.  This decision was made without supporting Air Force Instructions (AFI) references.  However, AFPC reached out to AF/A1PP who responded by stating the definition of “authorization” within AFI 36-2110, Assignments, was the reference.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to AFPC/DP2LL, the applicant was assigned to an unfunded position and met the 14E9 CMSgt Central Evaluation Board under CAFSC 8I000 on 2 June 2014.  

According to AFPC/DP3SP email, dated 18 November 2016, the applicant was selected for promotion to CMSgt with a Processing Sequence Number (PSN) of 360.0 and would have been promoted to CMSgt on 1 September 2015.

According to the Automated Records Management System (ARMS), the applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of CMSgt with a date of rank of 1 April 2016.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP3ST recommends the assignment and promotions OPRs address this application in as much as military classification did not, at the time, restrict assignment to only funded authorizations.  As such, there is nothing from a military classification perspective to be corrected in order for his application to be addressed by the above OPRs.

DP3ST focuses only on the military classification aspect, noting that AFI 36-2101, Classifying Military Personnel (Officer and Enlisted), contains policy for award/update of AFSCs in this instance, not assignment policy; and therein lies the disconnect that ultimately resulted in applicant’s projected promotion to CMSgt being withdrawn.  AFI 36-2110, Assignments, provides assignment policy (to include definition of terms), which impacted the “legitimacy” of applicant’s assignment to an unfunded position and ultimately the promotion actions which followed.

AFI 36-2101 does not specify “assigned permanent duty” (as stated in applicant’s referenced rule in Table 3.1., submitted with his DD Form 149, (Applicant for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552), must be restricted to only funded manpower authorizations per AFI 36-2110.  In this case, the applicant was assigned to an unfunded manpower requirement, which is outside of the military classification and therefore within AFI 36-2101 purview.  That said, they received the applicant’s AF Form 847, Recommendation for Change of Publication, and are implementing changes to the draft revision of AFI 36-2101 in the form proposed, and additionally, implemented changes to the SDI specialty descriptions on this issue. For example the 8I000 (Superintendent, Inspections) specialty description now includes:  “Airmen performing 8I000 duties but not filling a funded 8I000 UMD authorization will have no change in their awarded, control and duty AFSCs.”  AFI 36-2101, Table 3.11., rule two requirements did not specifically require “… assigned permanent duty …” to be restricted to funded authorizations.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3ST, with attachment, evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2LL recommends denial; however, they focus on the assignment portion of this request.  After further research, they found that the applicant was not in a valid position at the time he was selected for promotion in CAFSC 8I000.  The applicant’s CAFSC was erroneously updated to 8I000 in which there were not any valid authorizations at the unit; therefore, his promotion to CMSgt was invalid.  The applicant was notified by AFPC/DPSOE that he was in violation of the governing instructions because he was assigned against an unfunded position and should have been promotion boarded in his former CAFSC [2A690].  Thus, his line number was invalidated.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2LL, with attachment, evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He agrees with AFPC/DP2LL’s comments that his CAFSC was erroneously changed; however, he does not agree with their recommendation as it does not take into account as to why the CAFSC was erroneously changed.  Had AFI 36-2101 not been inadequate in regards to clearly annotating positions had to be funded before CAFSC can be changed, his wing personnel specialists would not have changed his CAFSC.  He would have been boarded as a 2A690 and would have most likely been selected for CMSgt.  He was selected this year (2016) with a board score of 412.5.  There are ZERO references to AFI 36-2110 to be found within AFI 36-2101.    Furthermore, after his line number was invalidated, AF/A1P sent a message to the field addressing the issue of erroneous changes to CAFSCs.  If there was not an issue with the guidance there would not be a need for the message to be sent.  Additionally, another individual had their line number invalidated the year prior for the same issue.  The individual, serving at Air Combat Command (ACC) as a Unit Deployment Manager, had her CAFSC change by the ACC staff in accordance with AFI 36-2101, table 3.1 rule 2.  This individual lost her line number to Master Sergeant (MSgt) as a result of inadequate guidance.  This happening one time is bad enough, but to happen in consecutive years is negligent.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit F.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal, we believe the applicant is the victim of an error or injustice.  While we note the comments of AFPC/DP2LL indicating that relief should be denied because the applicant was not in a funded position, we believe a preponderance of the evidence substantiates that corrective action is warranted.  In this regard, AFPC determined the applicant was erroneously selected for promotion to CMSgt during the 14E9 CMSgt Central Evaluation Board due to being assigned to an invalid/unfunded CAFSC [8I000].  However, AFPC/DP3ST points out that the military classification did not, at the time, restrict assignment to only funded authorizations.  After being selected for promotion, the applicant received a PSN of 360.0, which incremented on 1 September 2015; nevertheless, his PSN was revoked.  Also in support of the applicant’s requests, DP3ST notes that the applicant submitted an AF Form 847, Recommendation for Change of Publication, to their office that has been approved and is being implemented in the draft revision of AFI 36-2101 to preclude this problem from occurring another time.  The Board finds the applicant was compliant with his reassignment to a new CAFSC, prepared and tested accordingly for promotion to CMSgt, and was absent of fault or error during the matter in question. As such, to withdrawal his promotion due to an administrative or policy malfunction under said circumstances is unjust.  Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below. 

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 issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that competent authority granted an exception to policy authorizing the applicant to be selected for promotion to Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt) during cycle 14E9 CMSgt Central Evaluation Board in AFSC 8I000 with a date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 September 2015, rather than 1 April 2016.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03389 in Executive Session on 17 November 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03389 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Aug 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3ST, dated 25 Nov 15, w/atch.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2LL, dated 2 Feb 16, w/atch.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Mar 16.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Apr 16.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.