Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1991-02143A
Original file (BC-1991-02143A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                             SECOND ADDENDUM TO
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  91-02143
            INDEX CODE:  131

            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 XXXX, 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

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9102143A

    Original file (9102143A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 9102143

    Original file (9102143.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2001 | 0100831

    Original file (0100831.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-1998-01126.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9801126

    Original file (9801126.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9501726A

    Original file (9501726A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-1995-01726A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 9803077

    Original file (9803077.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900305

    Original file (9900305.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0003018

    Original file (0003018.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...