RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-01275

	COUNSEL:  NONE
	 
	HEARING:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His military records be corrected to reflect he was promoted to the grade of senior master sergerant (SMSgt) during the 15E8 promotion.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His record was incorrectly scored during the supplemental promotion process because of changes that were being instituted with the Enlisted Evaluation System (EES) and Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS).  He was not awarded Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) points (135.00) during the supplemental scoring process.  His supplemental score notice listed an improper cutoff score for his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) during the 15E8 promotion cycle.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of SMSgt.  On 25 Mar 16, the applicant submitted a DD Form 149, requesting his AFSC effective date be changed to 30 Sep 14.  On 22 Jun 16, AFPC/DP2SSP administratively corrected his record to reflect the correct Control AFSC (CAFSC) and directed he be given supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of SMSgt for the 15E8 promotion cycle.  The applicant was rendered a non-select during the Sep 16 supplemental board.  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SPP recommends denial indicating there was no error or injustice in the processing and supplemental consideration of the applicant’s records during the 15E8 promotion cycle.  In addition, Air Force policy does not allow for automatic promotions.  

Given the original policy requiring board members to use a prescribed scoring scale of half point increments (6-10), the final board score is a reflection of relative merit of promotion potential not a precise mathematical match for individuals requiring supplemental consideration.  Therefore, it is logical that benchmark records be pulled which afford the most accurate comparison to the applicant’s and allows the best assessment of promotion potential.  

During the supplemental process, weighted factors (EPRs decorations, test scores, time-in-grade and time-in-service) are used to determine which benchmark records will be used to score against the applicant’s record.  The applicant’s total weighted score was 294.08 and the cutoff score was 676.41.  Therefore, he required a score of 382.50 to be selected for promotion.  Six records are then pulled from the initial board process; three that received a 382.50 board score (“plus benchmarks”) and three a half point below (“minus benchmarks”).  All records, to include the applicants are “aged” to appear as they would have on the original board, and all records are scored together.  An eligible is rendered a select if their record outscores all three “minus” records and meets or beats one of the “plus” records.

DP2SSP confirmed that the correct weighted factors and cutoff score were used during the applicant’s supplemental consideration.  However, a review of his score notice did reveal a couple errors.  Specifically, his EPR points (135.00) were inadvertently left off (which made his total score incorrect) and the cutoff score reflected 676.58 rather than 676.41.  Since score notices for supplemental process are manually produced, there are bound to be human errors.  However, these errors did not affect the outcome of the applicant’s consideration.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 28 Dec 17 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 4 Jan 18.  In his response, the applicant contended the OPRs comments are only partially accurate.  He notes that the OPRs comment “the applicant was rendered a nonselect during the Sep 16, supplemental board” is inaccurately stated.  Specifically, the nonselection was a result of additional errors that omitted his EPR points, total points and an error in the cutoff score.  

The applicant states the advisory opinion fails to mention any evidence regarding his first case.  Specifically, his original board score was 382.50.  The OPR states the necessary score required for supplemental promotion is 382.50; which is the same as his original score.  Assuming the supplemental board does not automatically apply his original board score, the board process failed to consider his “original” promotion potential and relative order of merit and subsequently voided its worth. 

All his 15E8 promotion data indicated promotion testing in the 3P0X1 (Security Forces) career field.  However, his records were erroneously scored in the 8F000 (First Sergeant) career field.    While the OPR acknowledges human errors in their process (erroneously considered in the wrong career field during the 15E8 promotion cycle, omitted EPR points, incorrect total and cutoff scores) these errors were made on behalf of the Air Force – not him. The WAPS SNCO Supplemental Selection Board Management System Application Record, calls into question the integrity and accuracy of the document. Specifically, it reflects a “cursor” next to the 135 EPR points. The lack of transparency in the supplemental board score also leaves assumption on the value of this document. 

The Total Force Service Center verified both the 3P0X1 and 8F000 career fields are scored under the Mission Support category of the SNCO Evaluation Board process.  Therefore, he requests his original total score (676.58) during the WAPS 15E8 cycle be measured against the established 3P0X1 cutoff (676.41) benchmark under the 15E8 promotion cycle. Had the original errors not occurred the WAPS promotion process would have identified his scores in the correct AFSC and above the 3P0X1 cutoff, rendering his selection for promotion to SMSgt during the 15E8 promotion cycle.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, to include his rebuttal response to the Air Force advisory opinion, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error and injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2SSP and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2016-01275 in Executive Session on 31 May 18:

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 23 Nov 16 and 13 Feb 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSP, w/atch dated 11 Dec 16.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 18 Dec 17.
Exhibit E:	Applicant’s response, dated 4 Jan 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.