ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:
L
SEQ 1 4 1998
DOCKET NUMBER: 96-01940
COUNSEL : NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) closing 1 Aug 92,
1 Aug 93, 7 Aug 94, and 28 Mar 95 be declared void and removed
from his records.
He be reconsidered for promotion to the grade of senior master
sergeant (E-8) retroactive to a date determined by the Board.
RESUME OF THE CASE:
The applicant is a current Air Force enlisted member serving on
active duty in the grade of master sergeant.
On 15 Apr 97, the Board considered and denied an application
correction of military records pertaining to the s u b
applicant, in which he requested that his EPRs closing 1 Aug
1 Aug 93, 7 Aug 94, and 28 Mar 95, be voided and removed from
records; and, that he be reconsidered for promotion to the g
of senior master sergeant (E-8) retroactive to a date determ
by the Board (see AFBCMR 96-01940, with Exhibits A through F)
for
lject
92 I his
rade
ined
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT :
The Board did not have a complete package when it denied his
appeal. The documentation that he has provided supports his
claim that the contested reports were inaccurate assessments of
his performance because they were the result of racial bias.
A complete copy of the applicant's request for reconsideration is
at Exhibit G.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. In earlier findings, we determined that there was
insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action regarding
the applicant's request that his EPRs closing 1 Aug 92, 1 Aug 93,
7 Aug 94, and 28 Mar 95 be voided and removed from his records;
and, that he be reconsidered for promotion to the grade of senior
master sergeant (E- 8) retroactive to a date determined by the
Board. The applicant's most recent submission has been reviewed
and a majority of the Board finds that it is new and relevant.
Nevertheless, the Board majority finds it insufficient to warrant
a reversal of the Board's previous determination in this case.
The evidence provided does not show to our satisfaction that his
performance was not accurately depicted by the contested reports,
or the reports were based on factors other than his performance,
a majority of the Board adheres to the original decision and
concludes that no basis exists to ,act favorably on the
applicant's requests.
2. 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.
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.
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 4 J u n 98, under the provisions of AFI 3 6 -
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
Mr. Robert W. Zook, Member
Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Member
A majority of the Board found the applicant's submission to be
new and relevant. However, the Board majority voted to deny the
applicant's request that his EPRs closing 1 Aug 92, 1 Aug 93,
7 Aug 94, and 28 Mar 95 be voided and removed from his records;
and, that he be reconsidered for promotion to the grade of senior
found the applicant's submission to
master sergeant.
be new but not
warr
ion of the Board's
original decisio
voted to deny the
glY I
2
AFBCMR 96-01940
request
documentary evidence was considered:
reconsideration.
for
The
following
additional
Exhibit G. Letter, applicant, dated 19 May 97, w/atchs.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Panel Chair
3
AFBCMR 96-01940
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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00084 (CASE 3) INDEX CODES: 111.02, 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 7 Jan 92 through 6 Jan 93 be declared void and removed from her records. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT...
The applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested EPR. The applicant contends that the contested report was rendered as a direct result of an Article 15. MARTHA MAUST ' P a n e l C h a i r 7 t DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC mice of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-02061 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01229
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states he provided a constructed cause in effect document for consideration to breakdown much of what took place leading up to, and during, the period in question. After reviewing the documentation provided by the applicant and the evidence of record, the Board finds no persuasive evidence showing that the applicant was...
Apply three (3) points credit for the AFCM, 1OLC, to overall promotion score for cycle 96E7 and retroactively promote him to master sergeant for promotion cycle 96E7 and retire him in the grade of master sergeant, effective 30 Apr 97, with all back pay and allowances. This decoration does not meet the criteria for promotion credit during the 96E7 cycle because the RDP date is 5 Dec 96, after selections were made on 25 May 96 for the 96E7 cycle. After reviewing the evidence of record and...
On 6 Jun 95, he was given a specific order by the Operations Officer to disconnect a specific telephone (designated for data transmission) and to not use that line for telephone calls. On 26 Jul 95, the applicant received notification from his commander that he was not being recommended for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for cycle 95E7. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that should the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00251 INDEX CODES: 131.00, 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect the effective date for his promotion to the grade of master sergeant as 1 Apr 96, rather than 1 Nov 97, with back and allowances. DPPPWB believes the applicant needs to provide a copy of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02200
The applicant’s request under AFI 36-2401 to have the contested EPR removed from his records was denied by the ERAB. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-02200 in Executive Session on 8 October 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair Ms. Martha Maust, Member Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member By majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application. Exhibit B.
In his submissions to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), he illustrated his insufficient training, his attempts to get training, and the different conversations he had with the rater concerning his duty performance and accomplished workload tasks. The applicant contends he did not receive the 28 Jun 96 feedback session as indicated on his 16 Nov 96 EPR; however, he did not provide anything from his evaluator to support his allegation. Especially in view of the fact that the report...