ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 96-00593
ALE 2 5 1998
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reconsidered for promotion to the grade of chief master
sergeant (E-9) for the 9539 promotion cycle, with the Letter of
Evaluation (LOE) , closing 14 December 1994, filed in his
selection folder, and that his records be rescored.
RESUME OF CASE:
On 17 December 1996, the Board considered and denied a similar
appeal by the applicant. A summary of the evidence considered by
the Board and the rationale for its decision is set forth in the
Record of Proceedings, AFBCMR 96-00593, which is attached at
Exhibit G.
On 30 October 1997, the applicant provided additional evidence,
which was forwarded to the Board through SAF/MI, for possible
reconsideration of his application (Exhibit H) .
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He disagrees with the findings of the Board in his case and
believes that the evidence provides adequate support for his
contentions. He believes the facts verify that HQ AFPC failed to
update his master promotion file, lost his performance and
decoration data and did not look at his complete master promotion
file before automatically identifying him as a nonselect in 1995.
In further support of his appeal, he provided additional
documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions. A
complete copy of the applicant's submission is at Exhibit H.
c
I
.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
In earlier findings, we determined that there was insufficient
evidence to warrant any corrective action regarding the
applicant’s request for promotion reconsideration to the grade of
chief master sergeant (E-9).
We are unpersuaded by the
additional evidence presented that the Enlisted Performance
Report (EPR) , closing 17 April 1995, was not reviewed by the 95E9
Evaluation Board or that the supplemental evaluation board
violated established policy by electing not to rescore the
applicant‘s record or that its decision was an abuse of its
discretionary authority. In this respect, we note AFI 3 6 - 2 5 0 2
stipulates that rescoring is optional for supplemental promotion
board consideration. with regard to the LOE being filed in his
Senior Noncommissioned Officer Selection Record (NSR), we note
that LOEs are not required to be filed in the selection record.
The applicant’s assertions that the promotion board was unaware
of his performance while assigned temporary duty (TDY) were duly
noted. However, we compared the LOE in question with the EPR,
closing 17 April 1 9 9 5 , and it appears that the evaluators
extracted pertinent data from the LOE at the time the EPR was
rendered. A s to the aforementioned EPR being a certified copy in
lieu of the original EPR being filed in his selection record, it
is our opinion that the certified copy did not lessen the
importance of the evaluation of his performance during the period
in question. In addition, other than his own assertions, no
evidence has been provided to substantiate that the EPR was not
filed in his selection record at the time he was considered for
promotion. With regard to the applicant’s contentions concerning
the conflicting data verification record (DVR) and the selection
record, we note that, due to the missing data in his selection
record, he was provided supplemental promotion consideration in
accordance
procedures.
Notwithstanding the applicant’s assertions, we find no evidence
which would lead us to believe that the applicant was not fairly
considered for promotion in the supplemental process or that he
was treated substantially different than others similarly
situated. In view of the above, and in the absence of evidence
to the contrary, we adhere to the original decision to deny the
appeal. Accordingly, the applicant’s request is not favorably
considered.
established
with
policy
and
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of probable 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.
2
96- 00593
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 15 May 1 9 9 8 , under the provisions of AFI
36-2603 :
Mr. Thomas S . Markiewicz, Panel Chair
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member
Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit G . Record of Proceedings, dated 6 Feb 9 7 .
Exhibit H. Letter from applicant, dated 30 Oct 9 7 , w/atchs.
Panel Chair
/
c1
3
96-00593
Prior to 1989, when LOEs were attached to performance reports and filed in the record, the "from" date of the report was still determined by the close out date of the preceding report. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and states that the time that lapsed between the EPR and the validation of the IG Report was more than 35 days. BASIS FOR REQUEST: Applicant bases this...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02406
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02406 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 29 January 2000 through 28 January 2001 be declared void and replaced with a reaccomplished report. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01296
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01296 INDEX CODE: 111.05 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: MS. HALEVI HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 22 OCT 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be provided supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 05E7 with an AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report closing out on 7 August 2004, included in her records. ...
Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinions D. E. F. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions Addendum to Air Force Advisory Opinion AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E A I R F O R C E H E A D Q U A R T E R S A I R F O R C E P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R R A N D O L P H A I R F O R C E E A S E T E X A S MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 12 Jun 98 FROM: HQ AFPCDPPPEP 550 C Street West Ste 07 Randolph AFB TX 78 150-4709 SUB cords (DD Form 149) REQUESTED ACTION:...
On 20 September 1994, the AFBCMR considered and granted applicant’s requests to void the EPRs closing 30 November 1990 and 24 May 1991; reinstatement of his promotion to master sergeant, retroactive to 1 February 1991; reinstatement on active duty; and supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master sergeant for all appropriate cycles, beginning with cycle 94S8. A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC did not provide the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1997-02781
On 20 September 1994, the AFBCMR considered and granted applicant’s requests to void the EPRs closing 30 November 1990 and 24 May 1991; reinstatement of his promotion to master sergeant, retroactive to 1 February 1991; reinstatement on active duty; and supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master sergeant for all appropriate cycles, beginning with cycle 94S8. A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC did not provide the applicant...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that should the closeout date be changed from 11 Mar 97 to 7 Oct 96, it would be eligible to be used in the promotion process for the 97E7 cycle (promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98). A complete copy of the DPPPAB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit...
In his opinion, the applicant’s request for removal of the contested reports should be accomplished to correct an injustice of circumstances (Exhibit C). The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the first time the contested reports were considered in the promotion process was Cycle 96E7 to master sergeant (E-7), promotions effective Aug 96 - Jul 97. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Jun 98.
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-00978
In his opinion, the applicant’s request for removal of the contested reports should be accomplished to correct an injustice of circumstances (Exhibit C). The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the first time the contested reports were considered in the promotion process was Cycle 96E7 to master sergeant (E-7), promotions effective Aug 96 - Jul 97. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Jun 98.
In his opinion, the applicant’s request for removal of the contested reports should be accomplished to correct an injustice of circumstances (Exhibit C). The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the first time the contested reports were considered in the promotion process was Cycle 96E7 to master sergeant (E-7), promotions effective Aug 96 - Jul 97. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 17 Jun 98.