RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 94-04272
INDEX CODES: 131.09, 136.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her records be corrected to show that she was promoted to the grade of
master sergeant on 1 Nov 91, and that she retired in that grade on 1
Mar 92.
She receive military and retired pay due her as a result of her
advancement to the higher rank.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was not given due process.
None of her witnesses were contacted during the investigation.
She complained about a situation in her squadron, and was prosecuted
because of it.
Her case was not finalized until she was already out of the Air Force,
therefore being forced out.
Her case was done by people that knew XXXXXXX. Therefore, she feels
the case was handled in a biased manner.
The contents of the letter nonrecommending her for promotion were
written concerning more than one reporting period. She was rated as
being ready for promotion.
The letter she received on her congressional inquiry was done without
considering her side.
In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement,
a copy of a letter notifying her of her nonrecommendation for
promotion, with an attached statement from
the applicant, and other documents associated with the matter under
review.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air
Force on 8 Oct 71. Prior to the events under review, she was
progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant. She
entered her last enlistment on 17 Feb 87, on which date, she
reenlisted for a period of five years. On 2 Jan 92, the applicant
extended her current enlistment for a period of 1 month. As a result,
her date of separation (DOS) was extended from 16 Feb 92 to 16 Mar 92.
Applicant’s Airman/Enlisted Performance Report (APR/EPR) profile since
promotion to technical sergeant follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION
28 Feb 86 9
28 Feb 87 9
28 Jun 87 9
28 Jun 88 8
27 Feb 89 8
27 Feb 90 5 (EPR)
27 Feb 91 5
On 22 Oct 91, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was
nonrecommending her for promotion to the grade of master sergeant.
The commander indicated that, after much soul searching and review of
the applicant’s past performance and circumstances, he had concluded
in good conscience that the applicant was not professional enough and
dedicated enough to assume the responsibilities of master sergeant.
Despite being given the benefit of the doubt on her last two EPRs
which were rated “5’s”, and given the benefit of the doubt on a recent
commendation medal, each action of which was designed to motivate the
desired behavior, the applicant continued in her ways of
insubordination and disrespect. Since her last February’s performance
report, the applicant’s attitude and overall performance have been
unsatisfactory. Her negative attitude has adversely affected the
squadron for too long. Her insubordination, disrespect to officers
and general defiant attitude have surpassed any reasonable standard of
acceptance. Based on her insubordination, contempt and outright
disrespect toward squadron officers, and her very disruptive and
increasingly apathetic attitude, he was compelled to make the
nonrecommendation for promotion. The commander indicated that he made
the decision without any reservation. The duration of the
nonrecommendation action was for the entire 92A7 promotion cycle. The
commander stated that the following were excerpts from existing
documentation of the applicant’s previous unsatisfactory performance.
About 27 Feb 89, after XXXXX threatened the applicant with AFR 39-10
action and possible 1321 action (removal for cause), the applicant
immediately jumped the chain of command. She later informed the
commander. According to the commander, reasons for the possible
disciplinary actions against the applicant included negative attitude,
inadequate work performance, and general unprofessional behavior.
About 5 Jun 90, XXXXXX- was subjected to insubordinate behavior by the
applicant. During a conversation that became heated, XXXXXX asked for
a document which the applicant then crumpled up and threw in the trash
can. When the captain tried to retrieve the document, the applicant
grabbed it and tore it up.
Comments by XXXXXXX indicated a lack of support from the applicant and
that she told XXXXXXX to falsify birth dates on COI attendees.
About 19 Jun 90, XXXXXXX indicated an instance of disrespect by the
applicant. When the major entered her office attempting to complete
required paperwork, the applicant refused to acknowledge the major’s
presence or efforts to communicate.
On 20 Jun 90, XXXXXX received a disrespectful and unprofessional phone
call in her office from the applicant. The matter dealt with
paperwork and the applicant again showed an uncooperative and negative
attitude. The commander indicated that he personally overheard part
of this conversation and concurred with XXXXXXXX testimony.
On 26 Jun 90, due to a negative trend in the applicant’s attitude, the
applicant no longer dealt directly with XXXXX. After attempts to
alleviate the situation, XXXXXXX asked for a meeting with XXXXXXX and
the applicant. After finally agreeing to a short meeting, the
applicant again showed disdain and disrespect and then left claiming
she had another appointment. XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX and XXXXXXX all agreed
that the applicant had an attitude problem.
On 26 Jun 90, XXXXXXX further commented about the applicant’s negative
and insubordinate tones of conversation.
On 27 Jun 90, XXXXXXX approached the applicant to further discuss the
previous day’s meeting and again the applicant showed disrespect.
After informing the applicant that her unprofessional behavior would
be corrected as required, XXXXXX extended her hand in an attempt to
create a more comfortable working relationship. The applicant refused
the gesture responding with “so you can stab me in the back.”
XXXXXXX complained about poor treatment from the applicant. XXXXXXX
was very conscientious. He stated that phone calls he received had
been implications of recruiter fraud, misuse of government funds, and
being treated like a child.
On 27 Aug 90, XXXXXXX noted that the applicant’s behavior continued to
be inappropriate and counterproductive to team harmony and squadron
effectiveness. The applicant continued to avoid XXXXXXX. The
applicant approached the new H.P. flight supervisor and discussed the
ongoing disharmony with XXXXXXX, further planting seeds of discontent.
On 10 Jul 91, the applicant’s new supervisor, XXXXXXX, had already
noticed that the applicant’s attitude was one of doing just enough to
get by. Answers were short. Prying information out of the applicant
was hard.
On 10 Jul 91, in an attempt to increase their efforts in minority
recruiting, their squadron paid booth rental at a local minority job
fair. The commander asked four minority recruiters and four
Caucasians to man the booth. The applicant took the attitude that
this was discriminatory and threatened to report this to the
newspaper. After being offered “comp time” for working two four hour
weekend shifts, the applicant requested two days “comp time” for one
four hour shift. XXXXXX described her attitude during this entire
ordeal as threatening, insubordinate, disrespectful, unprofessional,
and unacceptable. The commander indicated that he had seen these same
traits for too long.
On 10 Jul 91, the commander indicated that he had decided that things
had gone too far. The applicant’s disrespect and insubordinate
attitude and behavior toward both fellow NCOs and officers was going
to cease. The applicant’s attitude had further deteriorated when she
was not promoted and now would be forced to retire. The commander
indicated that he realized he must thoroughly document the applicant’s
continuing negativism and acts of insubordination. The applicant’s
weight problem again had resurfaced. The applicant considered the
attempt to hold her accountable as harassment, and she continued to
threaten discrimination complaints. The commander told her that he
wanted the applicant to train her new supervisor and her replacement
who he had identified. The applicant responded with “my balloon of
knowledge has burst.” The commander told her to refill it and get to
work.
On 15 Jul 91, the commander indicated that the applicant’s series of
“illnesses” had now begun. The applicant did have some bona fide
problems, however, the applicant was obviously manipulating the
system. At work, the applicant claimed that she could not talk or
only in extremely low tones, making working relations even more
difficult, causing much frustration and repeating of efforts. XXXXXX
attempts to work with the applicant and communicate with her were
severely hampered by her apparent unwillingness to cooperate. The
applicant continued to be disrespectful and insubordinate. She had
increased the activity of bringing in witnesses whenever she was being
counseled, further deteriorating squadron morale. The commander
indicated that he did not allow this activity in his office and sent
away her witness.
About 17 Jul 91, the commander indicated that he was planning a trip
to Alaska which would include doubling for A&P and visiting radio and
television stations. He asked the applicant to set up an appointment
with a local station so that the applicant could train both XXXXXXX
and himself. After reminding the applicant two days later that they
needed this training, the applicant finally did set the appointment.
The commander found out the day of the appointment that the applicant
had also scheduled herself a personal appointment at McChord AFB which
resulted in cancellation of their training. The commander indicated
that the applicant games of avoiding her responsibilities continued.
On 19 Jul 91, the applicant was again unresponsive to XXXXXX. She had
made yet another appointment at McChord AFB and refused to adequately
explain to XXXXXXX the reason for it. The applicant accused XXXXXXX
of swearing or cursing at her. The commander inquired as to what was
said and the applicant said it was too bad to repeat. XXXXXXX
informed the commander that he told the applicant that she had a “s---
attitude.”
On 19 Jul 91, XXXXXX and the applicant asked to have a meeting with
the commander. The applicant claimed that she could not work for
XXXXXX any longer. She essentially refused to even try to work out
differences. The commander told the applicant and XXXXXXX he would
look into options but to continue with the current format.
On 23 Jul 91, XXXXXXX, noted the applicant’s absence from work during
the day. The applicant continued to work her own agenda.
On 23 Jul 91, after noticing that the applicant was going to numerous
doctor appointments at different locations, taking up much if not the
entire day, the commander asked her to explain what was happening.
She essentially refused to respond saying that the commander should
talk to her doctor. In an effort to find out what was happening, the
commander managed to track down two of at least three doctors the
applicant was seeing at, at least, three different locations. The
issue was the applicant’s weight status (out of limits but under
waiver for an acute thyroid problem). The commander told the
applicant that he knew she was being treated and that a recent blood
test would likely show that her problem was under control, which would
result in her being accountable for her weight. XXXXXX at XXXXXXX
stated that the applicant was very difficult to work with and stated
that she did not refer the applicant to XXXXXX Navy Hospital as the
applicant had told the commander. The applicant also told XXXXX that
the commander had told her that she would no longer need to take her
thyroid pills. Both were gross misrepresentations of the truth.
On 24 Jul 91, XXXXXXX from McChord called her and stated that she had
spoken with XXXXXXX. Together, they realized, in part, the game the
applicant was playing and their sympathy level had diminished.
XXXXXXX stated that the applicant’s thyroid was within tolerances.
Later that day, the applicant came to the commander’s office and
requested a copy of her DOA because she had heard about it and felt
she was being “back stabbed.” The applicant requested permission to
go to Social Actions.
On 24 Jun 91, without going into great detail, the applicant had
scheduled two appointments at McChord on two successive days, which
would likely keep her from work which was becoming her normal mode of
operation. The commander personally called and made the appointments
for the same day only to find out that the applicant called back and
canceled. Later that day, the applicant stopped by smiling to
XXXXXXX, telling him that she was going to the IG. The applicant said
she was also going to sick call for thyroid pills. Upon her return,
the applicant claimed she had a serious migraine, could not control
herself, and was going home on sick rest through the next day. The
commander indicated that he seriously doubted her illness but offered
to have someone drive her home—she refused. The commander spoke to
XXXXXXX. He said he had to take her word for the illness.
On 24 Jul 91, the commander informed the applicant, after hearing more
about her threatening complaints, that holding other people
accountable was just that, but with her it was harassment. The
commander told her to readjust her thinking to reality.
On 29 Jul 91, XXXXXXX indicated another incident of poor performance
by the applicant. A request for A&P support by a XXXXXX was going
unheeded. Also, during another conversation about the applicant’s
numerous appointments, XXXXXXX informed her that the commander had
asked him to keep close track of her comings and goings. The
applicant brought in another witness and stated that the commander had
told her that she could always do that. The commander indicated that
he did not believe that was a true statement in light of the fact that
he did not allow it in his office.
On 30 Jul 91, XXXXXXX has indicated that the applicant had developed a
technique of smiling and laughing when being given instructions. He
believed it was either an attempt to irritate him or suppress her own
animosity. On a separate occasion in the commander’s office about
this same time, the commander was giving instruction and counseling to
the applicant about her behavior when she suddenly developed an
obvious forced coughing attack. It was very discourteous and
disruptive. The commander finally just dismissed her in frustration.
On 16 Aug 91, following more episodes of going from one doctor and
location to another and missing much work, the commander called the
applicant to his office where she was again rude and disrespectful.
She would finish a statement with sir but in a very disrespectful
tone. The commander again asked her about her medical problems and
she refused to answer, telling him to talk to her doctor and stating
that she could not trust anyone. She hinted that a complaint was
forthcoming and that the commander had been biased in dealing with
black people. The commander offered to support her medical problem in
any way—she refused. The commander spoke with XXXXXXX the day before
and found out her problem dealt with a mammography, scheduled at XXXXX
Navy Hospital. XXXXXX stated that this procedure should have been
handled at XXXXXXX, and probably was not serious. This was the
commander’s first indication of the nature of the problem. As the
conversation in the commander’s office continued to disintegrate with
the applicant’s disrespectful and noncooperative attitude, the
commander dismissed her and wrote her a Letter of Reprimand (LOR).
After issuing the LOR, the commander indicated that the applicant’s
attitude did not improve, although her outright defiance and
disrespect of her superiors had ceased. The commander assumed that
counseling from the Area Defense Counsel or Social Actions may well
have reversed her trend of blatant acts of disrespect. In reviewing
all of the documented events, the commander stated that he was certain
the casual observer could see clearly that a nonrecommendation for
promotion was most certainly warranted. After the many attempts at
correcting the applicant’s behavior had proven futile, the commander
strongly felt that the only reasonable and responsible course of
action was to disallow her from attaining the prestigious and
responsible position of master sergeant. The commander indicated that
he thought he had shown that the applicant’s demonstrated
unprofessionalism and uncooperative attitude were proof positive that
this was the only logical course of action.
The applicant was to acknowledge receipt of the letter notifying her
of the nonrecommendation for promotion. However, no evidence exists
that she did so.
The applicant retired from active duty effective, 1 Mar 92, in the
grade of technical sergeant. She was credited with 20 years,
4 months, and 23 days of active duty service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Social Actions Branch, AFMPC/DPMYCS, reviewed this application and
indicated that they contacted the McChord AFB Social Actions office
and were informed that the applicant’s case file was destroyed in
accordance with AFR 30-2, The Social Actions Program. XXXXXXX the
Equal Opportunity and Treatment (EOT) Specialist at McChord recalled
the case was complex in nature because it dealt with recruiters from
the east and west coasts, making it difficult to process within the
normal time frame. He also recalled that the applicant was offered
promotion to the grade of master sergeant, but was not willing to put
in the time to make the rank. He said the Chief of Social Actions
worked the case, but he was no longer assigned to that base. Without
the case file information, DPMYCS stated that they cannot support the
applicant’s requests.
A complete copy of the DPMYCS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
The Airman Promotion Branch, AFMPC/DPMAJW1, reviewed this application
and recommended denial. DPMAJW1 indicated that, based on the content
of the commander’s letter, dated 22 Oct 91, he was acting within the
spirit and intent of AFR 39-29 when he nonrecommended the applicant
for promotion. Basic promotion policy is to advance airmen who have
clearly demonstrated the potential for more responsibility. Of those
airmen who show this potential for promotion, only the best qualified
may be promoted. Since the promotion system selects airmen for
promotion only from those who are recommended, commanders exercising
prudent judgment are fundamentally responsible for maintaining the
quality of enlisted promotions. Before recommending or approving a
promotion, the commander must review the commander’s enlisted
management roster and make sure the recommended airman’s duty
performance, training progress, and supervisory and leadership
abilities clearly warrant promotion. According to DPMAJW1, it is
clear that based on the content of the commander’s nonrecommendation
letter, the applicant should not have been promoted. Although the
applicant claims her witnesses were never contacted and her side of
the story was never requested concerning the recommendation, this was
not required to be done by the commander before he nonrecommended her.
Again, based on the content of the letter, facts were available for
the commander to render a “no promote” decision. Although the ratings
and content of the applicant’s last two Enlisted Performance Reports
(EPRs) are in contrast to the content of the nonrecommendation letter,
the commander stated that despite being given the benefit of the doubt
on her last two EPRs which were rated “5’s,” and given the benefit of
the doubt on a recent commendation medal, each action of which was
designed to motivate the desired behavior, the applicant continued in
her ways of insubordination and disrespect. In DPMAJW1’s view, the
nonrecommendation letter was procedurally correct; that is, it listed
the specific reasons for the nonrecommendation and was presented prior
to the effective date of promotion of 1 Nov 91. DPMAJW1 noted that it
appeared the applicant refused to sign it.
A complete copy of the DPMAJW1 evaluation, with attachments, is at
Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In her response, the applicant reiterated her previous assertions.
She also indicated that her Air Force background does not warrant the
character assassination that occurred when her commander wrote the
letter nonrecommending her for promotion. In all the positions she
has held, she was required to get along with both enlisted and
officers, as well as make recommendations. She taught pride,
professionalism, and military respect to many first-term airmen, never
neglecting to keep her own bearing above reproach. She has always
maintained a professional image.
Applicant stated that when the commander arrived at the 3561st USAF
Recruiting Squadron, she was the only African American in the
headquarters building. According to the applicant, everyone of
African American decent was systematically removed from the squadron
for one reason or the other, whether it was justified or not.
Applicant stated that the integrity of the commander was not only
questioned by enlisted members of her squadron, but also officers. In
her view, the character of the individual who nonrecommended her for
promotion should be known. If her witnesses had been given the
opportunity to comment at the time this case was ongoing, it could
have made a big difference in the first outcome.
Applicant’s complete response and additional documentary evidence are
at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Office of the Staff Judge
Advocate, AFPC/JA, reviewed this application and recommended denial.
Although the applicant stated in her appeal that she was not provided
due process, in JA’s view, the real basis of her claim is racial
discrimination and/or retaliation against her for filing claims of
racial discrimination. According to the applicant, her commander
prevented her from becoming a master sergeant because he was either
prejudiced against African Americans or was retaliating against her
because she filed complaints of racism against him with the Inspector
General (IG) and Social Actions.
According to JA, the applicant’s current claims of race discrimination
and retaliation are essentially a request for the Board to reconsider
the negative findings of the Social Actions and IG investigations.
The applicant has offered no credible evidence to support her claims.
Her present application is simply a rehash of matters previously
presented and rejected in earlier investigations. After review, JA
indicated that they find them no more persuasive now than they were
then. It was the applicant’s insubordination and defective attitude,
not race or retaliation, which compelled the commander to cancel her
promotion.
In summary, it is JA’s opinion that the applicant is a disgruntled
former technical sergeant whose claims of racism and retaliation have
been twice investigated and found to be without merit. This
application is a rehash of these unfounded claims. JA believes the
commander’s decision to cancel the applicant’s promotion is well
supported by the evidence. JA noted that during the final three years
of her service, the applicant’s increasingly hostile attitude began to
manifest itself. Attempts by her supervisors to establish a working
relationship were met with gross insubordination, cold indifference,
and undisguised hostility. When her misconduct became too serious to
tolerate further, the commander decided she was not senior
noncommissioned (NCO) material and canceled her promotion. Moreover,
her claims of racial bias are inconsistent with the positive and
rehabilitative actions the commander took on the applicant’s behalf.
Despite being provided numerous opportunities to prove herself ready
for advanced rank, her continuing conflicts only demonstrated the
opposite. Finally, JA believes the applicant’s claims of retaliation
are likewise without merit. According to JA, the applicant did not
contact Social Actions until more than two weeks after the commander
decided to cancel her promotion. As they could find neither error nor
injustice, JA recommends that the Board deny the application in its
entirety.
A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In her initial response, with which she provided additional
documentary evidence, the applicant indicated that the statement she
was denied promotion in retaliation for filing claims against her
commander is true to the best of her knowledge. He did not submit
anything until he found out for sure that she was submitting a
complaint against him. She filed a Recruiting IG complaint against
her commander and his unfair practices, and he was told about it
through the group vice commander.
Applicant feels that she was unjustly treated and unfairly accused of
accusations that were misinterpreted and turned against her. Her
witnesses where never contacted to verify dates, times, or situations.
And because of that, her case was harder to prove, but true.
Applicant submitted another response and additional documentary
evidence.
Applicant’s total responses and additional documentary evidence are at
Exhibit I.
_________________________________________________________________
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 probable error or injustice. The applicant's
complete submission was thoroughly reviewed, and her contentions were
duly noted. However, a majority of the Board does not find the
applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in support of
her appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the office of the Staff Judge Advocate (AFPC/JA). Therefore, in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, a majority of the Board
adopts AFPC/JA’s rationale and conclude that no basis exists 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 issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 22 May 97, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member
By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the request. Ms. Maust
voted to grant the request; however, as of 7 Nov 00, she has not
submitted a signed minority report. The following documentary
evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Oct 94, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFMPC/DPMYCS, dated 13 Dec 94.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFMPC/DPMAJW1, dated 9 Jan 95.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Jan 95.
Exhibit F. Letter, applicant, undated, w/atchs.
Exhibit G. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 9 Aug 96.
Exhibit H. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Sep 96.
Exhibit I. Letters, applicant, dated 2 Nov 96 and 26 Nov 96,
w/atchs.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Acting Panel Chair
AFBCMR 94-04272
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application of
I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members. A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied. I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted. Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.
Please advise the applicant accordingly.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards
Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02142
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02142 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 14 Jan 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His promotion to staff sergeant be reinstated effective 1 Jan 06. In a letter dated 14 Jun 06, the applicant appealed his nonrecommendation for promotion to his squadron and group...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit K. The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and states that although the applicant has provided support from the senior rater, she provide no support from the MLR president to warrant upgrading the PRF. After reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, the majority of the Board is not persuaded that the applicant’s records are either in error or unjust. The...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 1999-077
LCDR XX = Chief of the Command and XXX at XXX who allegedly informed the XXXX command that XXX was concerned about her performance at XXX. Xxxxx = Coast Guard xxxxx who served as xxxxx in the XXX and XXX xxxxxs and is now the xxxxxxx of the Coast Guard (see statement). However, the only complex xxxxx [the applicant] had been assigned to as an assistant [xxx xxx] in order to gain experience had been dismissed prior to xxx, and she had not yet been in xxxxx on anything other than [the...
CG | BCMR | Enlisted Performance | 1998-052
On May 25, 198x, she was told that the practices at the recruiting office and the claims of 125 recruiters had been investigated and that she had been charged with filing false claims. On June 22, 1999, Coast Guard Investigations forwarded a copy of the report of the investigation of the filing of false claims by recruiters in the xxxx office to the BCMR. On May 25, 198x, she was told that the practices at the recruiting office and the claims of 125 recruiters had been investigated and...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-03256 INDEX CODE 110.02 106.00 XXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her 1995 general discharge be upgraded to honorable and the narrative reason of “Misconduct” be changed to “Convenience of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2007-02503
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/JA recommends relief, and states, in part; the applicant suffered a downgraded EPR due to lack of training and lack of response from her supervisors or chain of command. The evidence of record clearly establishes that she was not being properly trained and that her chain-of-command was derelict in training her. At the request of the applicant’s counsel, the DoD/IG reexamined the documentation...
AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0076
CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD02-0076 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. Attachment: Examiner's Brief FD2002+-0076 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD (Former AMN) (HGH Al1C) 1. You did, at or near Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota, on or about 15 Oct 01, while in the office of Senior Master Sergeant .
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0418
She had two letters of admonishment for failure to go and late for work, one letter of counseling for failure to go, and one referral Officer Performance Report for unsatisfactory performance, The applicant complained that she was a victim of racial discrimination and harassment from her commander, and that she experienced retaliation after she exercised her right to make Military Equal Opportunity and Inspector General complaints against her commander. and SEE 3 me the understanding that...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03901
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of the Article 15 imposed on 1 March 2002, the nonrecommendation for promotion letter, copies of two Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs), promotion recommendations to the grades of airman and airman first class, and a letter of recommendation from his current commander. On 30 March 2004, the commander recommended him for promotion to the grade of airman and airman first class, effective 1 September 2002 and 30 July 2003, respectively. ...
d. The referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the period 18 Dec 93 through 17 Dec 94. e. The memorandum from his commander, dated 11 May 95, that established a Special Security File (SSF) on him. f. Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 2 Nov 95. g. The referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the period 18 Dec 94 through 17 Dec 95. h. Letter of Reprimand, dated 28 Mar 97. i. The Air Force contends that the applicant has no evidence that the adverse...