SECOND ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 91-02143
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS:
Direct promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant for promotion
cycle 89S9.
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 19 Dec 91, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request that
the Airman Performance Report (APR) rendered for the period 16 Jun 87
through 30 Oct 87 be declared void and removed from his records
(Exhibit I).
On 28 Nov 95, the Board granted applicant’s request for removal of the
APR closing 30 Oct 87 and recommended that he be provided supplemental
promotion consideration to the grade of chief master sergeant for all
appropriate cycles commencing with cycle 90S9 (Exhibit J).
On 31 Jul 98, the applicant requested the Board promote him to the
grade of chief master sergeant for promotion cycle 89S9 (Exhibit K).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the
applicant’s request and indicated that he was selected for promotion
to senior master sergeant during the 88S8 cycle. Selections for this
cycle were done on 12 Mar 87. He received Promotion Sequence Number
(PSN) 1653.0 which was incremented 1 Mar 88, the last month of the
cycle. He was promoted to senior master sergeant per SO P-052, Hq 1st
Combat Support Group, Langley AFB, Virginia, dated 1 Mar 88, with a
date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 Mar 88. Consequently, he
was ineligible for promotion consideration to chief master sergeant
for the 89S9 cycle as it required a DOR of 1 Mar 87 or earlier to be
eligible.
Regarding the Airman Performance Report (APR) scoring, the applicant
requested and the Board granted removal of the APR for the period
16 Jun 87 through 30 Oct 87 because he believed it would be
detrimental to his career. It was replaced with an AF Form 77
(Supplemental Evaluation Sheet) to show that he was not rated for that
period. The removal of this APR did not affect the weighted score he
received for APRs. He received the maximum 135.00 points after it was
removed. DPPPWB cannot speak for the board members who evaluated
applicant’s record during the supplemental process with regard to how
the removal of the APR influenced their assessment of his potential to
serve in the grade of chief master sergeant. Regardless, the
applicant was provided supplemental promotion consideration based on
his request to have the Board void the APR, and not selected. Neither
the Central Evaluation Board nor the Supplemental Promotion Board
assigned a score for a specific performance report. Their assessment
of his potential to serve in the higher grade was based on the
complete record using the “whole person” concept rather than specific
elements of that record. The applicant alleges that a low APR rating
receives a low score and no APR receives no score, which is incorrect.
Again, the entire record is evaluated to determine his potential.
The applicant has stated that he believes the promotion board complied
with procedures, evaluated each set of records, were impartial, and
followed the regulation, which DPPPWB agrees. Consequently, there is
no basis for an automatic promotion to chief master sergeant for any
cycle, particularly cycle 89S9 as applicant was ineligible because of
insufficient time-in-grade (TIG) (see Exhibit L).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided a two-page
response, with attachment (see Exhibit N).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice warranting direct promotion
to the grade of chief master sergeant for promotion cycle 89S9.
Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these
uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Chief,
Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, in his letter dated 8 Oct 98. The applicant
was provided supplemental promotion consideration based on his request
to have the Board void the APR closing 30 Oct 87 and not selected.
The Chief states that there is no basis for an automatic promotion to
the grade of chief master sergeant for any cycle, particularly cycle
89S9, since the applicant was ineligible because of insufficient TIG.
In view of the foregoing, we agree with the recommendation of the Air
Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision
that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has
suffered either an error or an injustice. Therefore, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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 18 May 1999, under the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603:
Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Member
Mr. Robert D. Stuart, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit I. ROP, dated 9 Jan 92.
Exhibit J. Addendum to ROP, dated 4 Jan 96.
Exhibit K. Letter fr applicant, dated 31 Jul 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit L. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 8 Oct 98.
Exhibit M. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Oct 98.
Exhibit N. Letter fr applicant, dated 19 Feb 99, w/atch.
MARTHA MAUST
Panel Chair
On 28 Nov 95, the Board granted applicant’s request for removal of the APR closing 30 Oct 87 and recommended that he be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of chief master sergeant for all appropriate cycles commencing with cycle 90S9 (Exhibit J). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the applicant’s request and indicated that he was selected for promotion to...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1991-02143A
On 28 Nov 95, the Board granted applicant’s request for removal of the APR closing 30 Oct 87 and recommended that he be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of chief master sergeant for all appropriate cycles commencing with cycle 90S9 (Exhibit J). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the applicant’s request and indicated that he was selected for promotion to...
On 12 Apr 99, the Deputy for Air Force Review Boards directed the applicant be promoted to E-8, with an effective date of 1 Feb 88, and that his grade at the time he was relieved from active duty and ultimately retired was E-8 rather than E-7; and, that his narrative reason for separation be changed to “voluntary retirement.” The applicant has provided a copy of the Record of Proceedings (ROP), Docket Number 98- 02050, at Exhibit A. On 12 Apr 99, the AFBCMR promoted him to senior master...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01126
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the application and addressed the supplemental promotion consideration issue. None of this, however, could conceivably explain his rater’s comment on the performance report in question that addressed his medical problems as “adversely affect(ing) his executive ability.” A medical physical profile, dated 13 Apr 88, addressed the applicant’s weight...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the application and addressed the supplemental promotion consideration issue. None of this, however, could conceivably explain his rater’s comment on the performance report in question that addressed his medical problems as “adversely affect(ing) his executive ability.” A medical physical profile, dated 13 Apr 88, addressed the applicant’s weight...
The Board again considered the application, with this new information, and on 1 Jul 97, a majority of the Board recommended partial relief in the form of supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant by the Calendar Year 1995E7 (CY95E) promotion cycle (see Exhibit U). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the applicant’s requests and indicated that...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1995-01726A
The Board again considered the application, with this new information, and on 1 Jul 97, a majority of the Board recommended partial relief in the form of supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant by the Calendar Year 1995E7 (CY95E) promotion cycle (see Exhibit U). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the applicant’s requests and indicated that...
DPPPWB stated a review of the applicant’s HQ Air Force Selection Folder reflects that the citation for the JSAM was filed in his selection folder on 16 October 1998. Therefore, a majority of the Board recommends that the applicant be given supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant with the citation for the JSAM included in his records. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military...
He also directed that the applicant be provided supplemental promotion consideration with her corrected record. On 5 Dec 96, the Board recommended that the applicant’s records be corrected to reflect that the EPR rendered for the period 31 Mar 90 through 18 Feb 91 be accepted for file in its proper sequence; that the EPR rendered for the period 31 Mar 90 through 18 Jun 91 be amended in Section I to show the period of the report as 19 Feb 91 through 18 Jun 91 and the reason for the report as...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03018 INDEX CODE: 111.02, 134.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: An expired Unfavorable Information File (UIF), with a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) be removed from her records; the line in Section V (Rater’s Comments) of her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), closing 23 Apr 99, which made the...