RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03822

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His line number be restored and he be allowed to be promoted to the rank of Technical Sergeant.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was selected for promotion to Technical Sergeant and should not have had the promotion removed since the error in his record was not due to his negligence, oversight, or falsification.  He made every effort to ensure his records were correct and someone else mistakenly placed the second Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC) on his record.  That negligence caused him to lose out on a promotion he worked so hard for and had earned with countless hours of dedication and sacrifice.  The remedy for someone else’s mistake should not be to punish someone that was not at fault for that mistake.  He has lived his life by the core values and have always felt the Air Force would do right by him and his family.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 8 Nov 05 and is currently serving.

On 14 Apr 13, the applicant was awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) for meritorious service as a Paralegal Craftsman, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina, from 10 June 10 to 1 Sep 13.  

On 8 Oct 13, the applicant was awarded the AFCM for outstanding achievement as the Noncommissioned Officer in Charge, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, 455th Air Expeditionary Wing, Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, from 24 Jan 13 to 1 Aug 13.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an injustice as reinstatement of the erroneous promotion to Technical Sergeant is not appropriate.  To do so would not be fair or equitable to the other individuals in the applicant’s Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) who have a higher score but cannot be promoted because their total score is below that needed for selection.  The applicant was considered and erroneously selected for promotion to Technical Sergeant.  However, when the applicant was initially considered, the promotion file at AFPC reflected he had three AFCMs (worth 3 points each) and two AFAMs (worth 1 point each).  Based on this data, he was given a decoration score of 11.00, giving him a total score of 430.30.  However, when data verification was accomplished at AFPC, the AFCM (2OLC) was not reflected in the Automated Records Management System (ARMS).  The applicant’s Military Personnel Section was notified of the discrepancy and his promotion was placed in withhold pending receipt of the decoration.  When it was discovered that the AFCM (2OLC) was an erroneous update, the decoration and associated three points were removed rendering the applicant a non-select by 0.44 of a point.  It is unfortunate that the update error was not corrected prior to selects being run for the cycle; however, it does not negate the fact that the applicant had only been awarded two AFCMs. It also does not change the fact that without the erroneous decoration, the applicant’s score was not sufficient to meet the cutoff score required for selection.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPR and argues that he followed Air Force Instruction guidance by reviewing his records prior to testing and subsequently notified his Military Personnel Section that his record only reflected one AFCM.  As a result of a series of errors by the Military Personnel Section, he alone is made to suffer the indignation of having to explain to his peers and counterparts why he was no longer allowed to be promoted.  Furthermore, he states the Board should not consider the advisory opinion that reinstatement of his promotion would not be fair and equitable to others who had a higher score but could not promote because their total score is below the cutoff.  It is safe to assume there are very few that missed the cutoff by less than 0.44 of a point.  Their selection or non-selection should have no bearing on the decision in his case.  

A complete copy of the applicant’s 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 injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission and rebuttal in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion, that even though an error did occur, the applicant has not been the victim of an injustice.  Furthermore, the error was corrected in accordance with the verification process after consideration for promotion.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2015-03822 in Executive Session on 25 Jan 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03822 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Aug 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 26 Jan 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Apr 16.
	Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 27 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.