RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04168 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect his grade as staff sergeant (SSgt) (E-5) rather than senior airman (SrA) (E-4). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was selected for promotion to SSgt during promotion cycle 11E5. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement and copies of his DD Form 214, promotion notification, and an electronic communication. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served on active duty from 5 April 2005 to 4 October 2011. He served as a Security Forces Journeyman and was progressively promoted to the grade of SrA effective 27 September 2007. The remaining relevant facts, extracted from his military service records, are contained in the evaluation by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states the applicant was supplementally considered for promotion to SSgt for cycles 10E5 and 11E5 during the October 2011 in-system supplemental process. He was nonselected for promotion cycle 10E5, but tentatively selected for promotion to SSgt for cycle 11E5. He received promotion sequence number (PSN) 603.0 with a projected date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 November 2011; however, he became ineligible for promotion consideration when he separated on 4 October 2011 and was; therefore, an erroneous select. DPSOE indicates the applicant was no longer on active duty when the selects were run on 7 October 2011 and released on 13 October 2011. Had his Military Personnel Squadron updated his separation in the system on 4 October 2011 (effective date of his separation), he would have never been considered for promotion and his name would not have erroneously appeared on the list of tentative selects. Even if the applicant had separated effective 8 October 2011 (the day after selects were run), his promotion would have automatically been placed in withhold status as he had not completed Airman Leadership School (ALS) in accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2502, Table 1.2, Item 11. The Personnel Data System (PDS) automatically withholds promotions for those individuals who do not complete appropriate Professional Military Education (PME) prior to the promotion effective date. Wing Commanders or equivalent (cannot be delegated further) are granted authority to waive enlisted PME for promotion to E5, E7, or E9 for personnel who cannot complete training prior to sewing on. Airmen with approved waivers must attend enlisted PME (in the higher grade) within 179 days of their effective promotion date, or as soon as they are available without impacting the mission. The only exceptions beyond 179 days are for 179-day or 365-day deployments. It is DPSOE’s opinion that the applicant is under the misconception that his Major Command could waive his PME attendance altogether. This is simply not true, nor would it be fair or equitable to his peers who have had to complete mandatory training prior to their promotions. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 December 2011, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ 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 an 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-04168 in Executive Session on 30 May 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-04168: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Oct 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 5 Dec 11. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Dec 11.