RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-04513

						COUNSEL:  NONE

HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her promotion to Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt, E-9) be reinstated.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She did everything in her power to ensure her personnel records were accurate for the 16E9 promotion board.  Her Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) was not properly updated in the personnel system.  Her primary AFSC is 4N0X0, however, she was filling a position in special duty positon in the AFSC 8P100, and should have competed for promotion under AFSC 8P100, but due to no fault of her own, she competed for supplement promotion consideration in her primary AFSC 4N0X0.  

She was notified she was selected for promotion to E-9; however, due to a discrepancy in her record, her promotion was withdrawn. She was provided supplemental promotion consideration and was not selected.  She questions whether she received fair consideration for promotion during supplemental consideration.  Her promotion was not handled in accordance with governing policy.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force as a senior master sergeant (SMSgt).

AFI 36-2502, 2.8.3.8, stipulates that for SMSgt and CMSgt Promotions, AFPC/DPSOE conducts data verification on selects prior to virtual promotion release.  When a data error is found that could result in non-selection, the Airman is notified of the error in writing and directed not to assume the new grade until AFPC/DPSOE confirms the selection status.

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/DP2SPP recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice noting there are no provisions for a service member who has been erroneously selected to retain the promotion.  Promotions are based on limited quotas and to allow retention of an erroneous promotion precludes promotion of another who has legitimately earned it.  The applicant was provided fair and equitable consideration through the supplemental process in accordance with policies and procedures.  This consideration is provided to other service members similarly situated. 

The applicant was considered and tentatively selected for promotion to CMSgt during cycle 16E9 in CAFSC 4N0X0.  However, she was later notified that she had been considered and selected for promotion in the wrong AFSC.  As a result, her promotion was withdrawn.

Service members compete for promotion in the CAFSC they hold at the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD).  The PECD cutoff date for 16E9 cycle was 31 Jul 16.  At PECD, the weighted airman promotion system (WAPS) reflected the applicant’s CAFSC 4N0X0 despite her attempts to have it corrected to reflect 8P100. However, supplemental promotion consideration is afforded to service members whose records were in error during the Central Selection Board (CSB) process.  The applicant received supplemental consideration in the correct AFSC (8P100) and was not selected for promotion.  This action is fair and consistent with how all service members in similar situations are treated.

The purpose of the supplemental promotion board is to closely replicate the conditions which existed during the original evaluation board.  The evaluation board is subjective in nature and policies have been put in place to bring an acceptable level of consistency to the process while at the same time recognizing there are variations in scoring from panel member to panel member and from board to board.  

However, due to the competitive nature of promotions, particularly to CMSgt, and the subjective nature of scoring records using the current scale, there are always a number of well qualified members who are not able to achieve high enough placement in the relative order of merit to be selected for promotion.  Similarly, well qualified members who are approved to meet supplemental promotion boards are often not able to substantially improve their position within the order of merit to secure promotion.  Furthermore, the applicant cannot compare the results of the two Boards as her record was reviewed by different panel members, and she was competing against a different pool of eligible individuals. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2SPP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that despite her repeated efforts to have her AFSC updated, it was not updated.

While the OPR stated that supplemental promotion consideration is afforded to service members whose records where in error during the CSB process, and that this action is fair.  This is clearly an injustice to her as she took every action possible to have her AFSC corrected.  The OPR further mentioned there are policies and procedures in place to provide supplemental promotion consideration.  Also, there are policies and procedures in place to ensure that these situations do not occur, and she followed those policies and procedures, but the squadron did not.

There were 2,229 eligible SMSgts for promotion, only 244 received her score or higher.  The initial board viewed her as one of the best among the best.  

She believes the supplemental promotion process is skewed - promotion board scores are not provided, which denies members the right to have the feedback of knowing where they stand amongst promotion eligible peers, and ultimately raises the question of how the records are being scored.  Had she not met the primary board and received the board score she did, she would have no leverage to question the supplemental board, but to go from a 405 to apparently less than 360 is troubling when our board members, regardless of who they are, are supposed to be evaluating the same criteria.  

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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we believe the applicant is the victim of an error or injustice.  While we note the comments of AFPC/DP2SPP recommending denial of the applicant’s request, we notice the applicant tested and was erroneously selected for promotion under the wrong AFSC and was provided supplemental consideration but was not selected for promotion.  However, we believe the evidence shows the applicant made several attempts to correct her AFSC prior to the promotion board but was erroneously selected for promotion to Chief Master Sergeant.  We find if the administrative processes, such as the data verification, had been conducted prior to the promotion release, the applicant would not have been subjected to the injustice of being notified she was selected for promotion and subsequent removal from the promotion list.  Although we note the applicant contends she met the board in the wrong AFSC, the Board determined the appropriate method to correct the record and injustice, and provide fitting relief, is to correct the record to show she met the promotion board in her prior AFSC.  Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show on 15 February 2016, she retained her Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of 4N191, was considered and selected for Chief Master Sergeant in the Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) of 4N0X0 for the 16E9 Senior Noncommissioned Officer Selection Board, and on 1 August 2016, her AFSC was changed to 8P100.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2017-04513 in Executive Session on 6 Feb 18, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records:

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2017-04513 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 16 Aug 17, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Excerpts from Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2SPP, dated 11 Dec 17.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 Dec 17.
	Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 2 Jan 18.

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.