RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03804 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) for promotion cycle 11E5. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 2 Sep 11, while deployed in Afghanistan, he looked at his promotion data in the vMPF and noticed his promotion information changed and his official score was above the cutoff. He contacted his unit and was told the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) changed the cutoff for Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 3P0X1 to 258.33. This led him to believe the posted scores were correct and he should be promoted. The Force Support Squadron (FSS) stated they would confirm the change with AFPC. Subsequently, the FSS advised him that AFPC had made a human error. He believes receiving a new score notice in the vMPF constitutes his promotion notification and requests the Board honor this notification of promotion. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, various emails between his home station Force Support Squadron (FSS) and AFPC/DPSOE, and the vMPF WAPS Score Notice. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of senior airman (SrA). He was considered and nonselected for promotion to SSgt during cycle 11E5 (promotions effective 1 Sep 11 – 1 Aug 12) in AFSC 3P0X1. His total score was 258.43 and the score required for selection in his AFSC was 259.00. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states the applicant’s score during cycle 11E5 was below the cutoff required for selection in his AFSC. On 1 Sep 11, a cutoff score change was accomplished when it was determined that an individual who was selected was ineligible for promotion consideration. The new cutoff score was 258.83; however, the number was inadvertently mistyped as 258.33, and the vMPF system automatically refreshed when the new cutoff was updated. On 2 Sep 11, a message was sent to all Military Personnel Section (MPS) promotion offices with affected individuals informing them that they would run through the in- system supplemental process. They would receive a new score notice via vMPF on 8 Sep 11 and would be rendered a tentative select pending data verification. That afternoon the cutoff score error was discovered, corrected, and at 2:35 another message was sent to the applicant’s MPS informing them of the error. Selects for the September in-system supplemental were run on 2 Sep 11, and officially released on 8 Sep 11. Therefore, the information the applicant saw on his vMPF WAPS score notice, dated 1 Sep 11, was tentative (as stated in the first line of the score notice), data verification had not been accomplished, and the official announcement of selects was not scheduled for public release until 8 Sep 11. Cutoff changes are a common occurrence for every cycle, but scores are not official until selects are actually run, released and data verification has been accomplished. Personnel are informed when promotions are first announced they are tentative, pending data verification. When an error is detected, regardless of what caused the error, the correction is made in order to maintain the fairness and integrity of the promotion process. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 18 Nov 11, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, 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 that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 issue involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ 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. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2011-03804 in Executive Session on 8 Mar 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Sep 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 28 Oct 11. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Nov 11.