RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03333
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 24 February
1995 through 11 June 1996 be declared void and removed from his records, or
as an alternative, upgrade the report.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His EPR was downgraded after his failure of a formal technical school due
to extenuating circumstances. He also states that he was not provided any
WAPS testing material by the 552nd training squadron since he was not
assigned to that squadron and his home squadron was in the process of
disbanding. The original orders were incorrectly typed to reflect a
Temporary Duty from 1 May 1995 to 16 August 1995, a total duty time of
three and a half months. His temporary duty was extended seven times until
12 February 1996, a total of ten months instead. The resulting
Aviation Service Codes have been purged from his records by the Air Force
Board of Correction of Military Records. He further states that the
overriding evaluation point for this EPR was his failure of the formal
training course, E30000BQ0FX1,E3A, Flight Engineer.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from the rater, who
states that the overriding evaluation point was his failure in the formal
course E30000BQ0FX1, E3A Flight Engineer. During the reporting period he
had no C-141B flying activity, hence no favorable promotion consideration
could be given. Failure of his course did not justify a referral EPR in
our squadron’s opinion, as the matter of continuance of his retraining
status was still in question at time of EPR closeout.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 March 1979.
The applicant retired on 3 March 1999, in the grade of staff sergeant based
on High Year Tenure (HYT) - 20 years active service.
EPR profile since 1991 reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
5 Apr 91 4
5 Apr 92 4
5 Apr 93 4
5 Apr 94 4
23 Feb 95 4
*11 Jun 96 3
11 Jun 97 4
11 Jun 98 4
* Contested report.
On 28 July 1998, the AFBCMR considered and granted applicant’s request to
remove the ASC 00 from his records. However, they found no basis upon
which to recommend favorable action on his request to be reinstated to
flying duties as a C-141 flight engineer. A complete copy of the Record of
Proceedings is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and
states that in the absence of information from evaluators, official
substantiation of error or injustice from the Inspector General (IG) or
Social Actions would have been appropriate. They state that the applicant
is trying to convince the Board his failure to receive Weighted Airman
Promotion System (WAPS) testing material was the result of erroneous
temporary duty (TDY) orders prepared at his home duty station. They point
out that while it is true a squadron normally issues WAPS testing material
to each member of their squadron eligible to test during a promotion cycle,
when a person is retraining, they do not receive Career Development Course
(CDC) material as they normally take only the Promotion Fitness Examination
(PFE). Therefore, they are issued only the PFE Study Guide. Based on the
evidence provided, they recommend denial of applicant's request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
The Chief, Inquiries/Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed
this application and states that should the Board void the contested report
in its entirety, upgrade the overall rating, or make any other significant
change, providing the applicant is otherwise eligible, the applicant will
be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration commencing with cycle
97E6.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 18 January 1999, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to
applicant for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however,
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt
their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis 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 issue(s) 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 17 June 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
Mrs. Margaret A. Zook, Member
Ms. Leta L. O’Connor, Member
Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Nov 98.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Record of Proceedings, dated 18 Aug 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 18 Dec 98.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 3 Dec 98.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Jan 99.
TERRY A. YONKERS
Panel Chair
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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03025 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPR) closing 19 Mar 97 and 25 Jul 97 be declared void and removed from his records. Concerning the EPR closing 25 Jul 97, DPPPA noted the applicant’s contention that the 25 Jul 97 EPR was biased against...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01798 INDEX CODE: 107.00, 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE APPLICANT HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), (2OLC), be considered in the promotion process for cycle 99E6 to technical sergeant. It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to...
The applicant was non-weighable (could not be considered because he did not test) for the 96E6 cycle (testing months January - March 1996). The applicant was provided supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to the grade of TSgt by cycle 96E6 using his test scores from the cycle 97E6 (testing months January - March 1997). The applicant was provided supplemental promotion consideration for the 96E6 cycle using his test scores from the 97E6 cycle.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00944 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) he has provided, rendered for the period 2 Jul 95 through 27 Nov 95, be added to his official personnel record. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
Afterwards, he was informed that if he had chosen to extend for one month at his previous assignment until his formal retraining that he would have been scored in the AFSC 3P051. If he had been scored in the AFSC 3P051 he would have been promoted. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the documents provided by the applicant and the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, also reviewed this application and indicated that while the applicant contends that he did not receive his two feedbacks during the contested period, they note that the rater indicates in Section V (Rater’s Comments) that feedbacks were conducted on 25 Sep 96 and 6 Mar 97. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record...
DPPPA indicated that the second DoD/IG complaint in May 97, contending further reprisal alleging that his command denied him an MSM, downgraded his 14 Jun 97 EPR, and assigned him to an inappropriate position, for the protected communication to the IG and wing safety officials, did not substantiate the applicant was the victim of continued reprisal. With regard to applicant’s request for promotion, JA agrees with HQ AFPC/DPPPWB’s assessments that should the Board void or modify either of...
EPR profile since 1992 reflects the following: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 29 Jan 92 5 29 Jan 93 5 14 May 94 5 * 14 May 95 5 14 May 96 5 15 Nov 96 5 15 Nov 97 5 5 Oct 98 5 * Contested report _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that should the Board replace the report with the closing date of 1 October...
DPPPAB stated that the applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested EPR. Air Force policy states that only 120 days of supervision are required before accomplishing an EPR; and the EPR was designed to provide a rating for a specific period of time based on the performance noted during that period, not based on previous performance. He did provide evidence with his application that the performance feedback statement is false.