RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-01180

 						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His promotion selection to the grade of Master Sergeant (MSgt,   E-7) for Cycle 15E7 with Date of Rank (DOR) and effective date for promotion of 1 November 2015 be reinstated.     

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to the incompetence of his Force Support Squadron (FSS) and AFPC, his MSgt grade was taken from him after he had already sewed on the stripe.

He was unjustly demoted by AFPC.  His records were not corrected until 100 days after the promotion release.  It was not within AFPC’s authority to demote him.  Per AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, the demotion authority for Senior Noncommissioned Officers (SNCO) is the group commander.  He submitted an IG complaint and a Congressional inquiry to correct this injustice.  The AFPC IG response did not provide any regulations to explain their actions and included weak excuses.

This situation started when he transferred from the United States Marine Corps (USMC) to the Air Force in 2003.  At this time, he had two Navy-Marine Corps medals which the Air Force counted as 5 points each for the Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS).  He served for 13 years and two promotions in the Air Force with these medals in his records and had no reason to doubt their validity.  These medals counted when he was promoted to the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt, E-5) and Technical Sergeant (TSgt, E-6).  The response he received from AFPC/IG was that because he made SSgt and TSgt by over 10 points, neither the FSS nor AFPC cared if the medals counted or not.  

The MSgt promotion results were released on 15 July 2015 and he was not notified of any discrepancies within the 10 day window as required; but was notified over 100 days after the promotion release.  At this time, he provided the supporting documents to the FSS and AFPC cleared his records permitting him to sew on the grade of MSgt.  It was not until 2 November 2015 (after his 1 November 2015 promotion) that AFPC claimed his decorations were not valid and a SSgt “administratively reversed” his grade back to TSgt.  To make matters worse, his Virtual Military Personnel Flight (vMPF) record reflected he had been administratively demoted.  

There is a reason the AFI states record reviews must be completed within 10 days.  Over the course of the 100 days it took for the FSS and AFPC to do their jobs, he spent money on getting new uniforms and was also moved from a TSgt to MSgt position as the Noncommissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC) of Weapons Maintenance.  He also attended and graduated from the SNCO induction ceremony and preparation course, received an AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (MSgt thru SMSgt), attended his promotion ceremony on 1 November 2015 and was congratulated by his wing commander.  This also affected his stratification for the 2016 promotion cycle as he was in a state of flux with the pending IG complaint and Congressional inquiry.    

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is in the Regular Air Force currently serving in the grade of MSgt with DOR and effective date of 1 September 2016.

According to Special Order 163-010 dated 5 September 2002, the applicant was approved for enlistment in the Regular Air Force as a prior service airman in the grade of Senior Airman (SrA, E-4).  

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/DPSOE recommends denial.  Reinstatement of his erroneous selection to the grade of MSgt is not appropriate as his total score was below the cutoff required for selection.  To grant the request would not be fair or equitable to other individuals in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) who have a higher score but cannot be promoted because their total score was below required for selection. 

The applicant was considered and tentatively selected for promotion to the grade of MSgt during Cycle 15E7, with public release date of 16 July 2015.  He received Promotion Sequence Number (PSN) 1850.0, which incremented on 1 November 2015.  The total score required for promotion selection was 541.49 and his total score was 544.06 (to include 18 points for decorations).  

In accordance with Air Force policy, data verification on all selectees is accomplished within 10 days of public release.  During the data verification process it was identified the applicant’s Navy medals were missing from the Automated Records Management System (ARMS).  The applicant’s servicing Military Personnel Section (MPS) was notified on 16 July 2015 (public release on 15 July 2015) and his promotion was placed in withhold pending receipt of the documents.  When the MPS forwarded the documents for file in ARMS, they also released the promotion withhold (which was not in their authority to do) which caused the promotion to consummate.  When the MPS forwards a missing document to ARMS for individuals whose promotion has been placed in withhold pending receipt of documents, they should contact AFPC Enlisted Promotions.  Once the documents are verified on file in ARMS, AFPC Enlisted Promotions releases the promotion withhold.

In the applicant’s case, AFPC/DPISR (ARMS) received the documents for file.  They contacted the AFPC Awards and Decorations office to determine whether the documents were authorized as they were not on the listing of awards that received points for promotion.  At that point, the applicant’s erroneous promotion, updated by the MPS without authority, was canceled and placed back into withhold.  This was done on 2 November 2015.  The Awards and Decorations Branch determined the documents to be letters of appreciation and not official medals that would have associated point values.  The erroneous points were therefore removed from his records which resulted in his total promotion points falling below the cutoff required for promotion selection.

The USMC certificates were erroneously updated as medals in the Military Personnel Data System (MILPDS) when the applicant was accessed in to the Air Force and used in the promotion process for past cycles; however, they did not affect his selection for those cycles.  The first time the contested documents were used in the promotion process was Cycle 04E5 (SSgt).  The next time the contested documents were used was for Cycle 10E6 (TSgt).  In both cycles, the applicant had enough excess points to remain a select.  

Since 1970, the Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) has been accepted as a visible, fair and equitable system.  Verification of promotion data, before and after consideration, to include by the eligible person is essential to maintain the credibility of WAPS.  The data verification by AFPC in accordance with AFI 36-2502 is a secondary measure.  When an error is detected, appropriate action must be taken.  Specifically, if a member is selected based on erroneous information and when reconsidered with the correct data and the total score falls below what is required for promotion, the member’s name is removed from the selection list. It is unfortunate the contested documents were updated as medals; however, it does not negate the fact they do not have associated points towards promotion.  It also does not change the fact that without the erroneous points, his score was not sufficient to meet the cutoff score required for selection.  
 
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP3SP recommends denial. The applicant requests his letters of appreciation/commendation he received from his time in the USMC be counted as actual military decorations and be assigned a point value in WAPS; however, letters of appreciation/commendation are not considered official military decorations in accordance with AFI 36-2803, Military Decorations Program.  

The applicant’s letters of appreciation/commendation from the USMC Meritorious Mast dated 22 February 1999, the two USMC Corps Certificates of Commendation dated 28 December 1999 and 30 August 2000 and a USMC Certificate of Appreciation dated 11 August 2001 are not military decorations and therefore are not assigned a point value within WAPS.  Unfortunately, it appears these documents were mistaken as military decorations and updated in MILPDS which was in error.  The MILPDS has subsequently been corrected and these documents were not made to be a part of the applicant’s official military personnel record.   

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3SP evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 16 February 2017 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

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.  The applicant requests his grade of MSgt and DOR be backdated to 1 November 2015 to reflect he was promoted during Cycle 15E7 based on the administrative errors made by AFPC and MPS.  While we do dispute there were administrative errors in the timely verification of his record for promotion eligibility during the CY15E7 MSgt promotion cycle and it is unfortunate his certificates of recognition from his period of service in the USMC were incorrectly considered as medals with WAPS point values in the MILPDS for 13 years; we are not persuaded the administrative errors rise to a level of an injustice to warrant granting the applicant’s request.  In this respect, the evidence clearly substantiates the certificates of recognition are not medals and without these points, the applicant’s total WAPS score falls short of the cutoff required for promotion to the grade of MSgt for Cycle 15E7.  Moreover, it is our opinion granting the applicant’s request would result in an injustice to other similarly situated airmen who may have been denied promotion upon completion of data verification.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not sustained his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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-2016-01180 in Executive Session on 6 July 2017 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	  Panel Chair
	  Member
 	  Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 March 2016.  
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 1 July 2016.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 22 November 2016.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 February 2017.  

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.