INDEX CODE: 111.01, 111.03
AFBCMR 98-00728
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR
SUBJECT: (APPLICANT)
Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and
adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the
applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice.
Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's
records will be corrected as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum for
the Chief of Staff signed by the Executive Director of the Board or his
designee.
Panel Chair
Attachment:
Ltr, ANG/DPPU, dtd Nov 19, 1998,
w/Atch
AFBCMR 98-00728
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code
and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the
provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board
for Correction of Military Records is announced, and it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected by deleting the reviewer’s comment in
Section VIII, and his marking indicating he did not concur with the rater
and additional rater from the AF Form 707A, Field Grade Officer
Performance Report, rendered for the period 16 May 1995 through 26
December 1995.
JOHN J. D’ORAZIO
Chief Examiner
Air Force Board for Correction
of Military Records
INDEX CODE: 111.01, 111.03 AFBCMR 98-00728 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: (APPLICANT) Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00728
Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum for the Chief of Staff signed by the Executive Director of the Board or his designee. Members of the Board Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Mr. Garry G. Sauner, and Ms. Carolyn B. Willis considered this application on 4 November 2004. Ltr, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dtd 19 Oct 04 AFBCMR BC-2004-00728 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552,...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, states that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 96E5 to staff sergeant. The applicant provided a statement from his rater, but failed to provide any information/support from the other members of his rating chain on the contested EPR. A complete copy of the...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-00743
He receive supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to the grade of Chief Master Sergeant (E-9) by the promotion cycle 97E9. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 4 May 1998 for review and response within 30 days. In view of the foregoing, we recommend the contested report be...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 96-01717 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records is announced, and it is directed that: The pertinen Force relating to corrected to show nonpaid inactive duty training...
He receive supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to the grade of Chief Master Sergeant (E-9) by the promotion cycle 97E9. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 4 May 1998 for review and response within 30 days. In view of the foregoing, we recommend the contested report be...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00796
AFBCMR BC-2006-00796 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code, Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records is announced, and it is directed that: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected by amending the Officer Selection Brief, prepared for...
The applicant filed two similar appeals under AFI 3 6 - 2 4 0 1 , Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which were denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB). The applicant requests the Board upgrade his 24 Jun 95 enlisted performance report (EPR) to a “5” in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation. The additional documentation he has submitted still by this “policy” regarding individuals who received an Article 15 (or that it ever existed).
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a statement from the rater, statement from the CAP Administrator, the contested report, reaccomplished report, and the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board application, w/atchs. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the application and states that in comparing the contested OPR with the previous 13 February 1995,...
DPPP stated that the letter from the rater supports removal of the contested OPR - it does not support replacing the report with a reaccomplished version. The rater's letter does not substantiate the report, as written, is invalid. After reviewing the evidence presented, we are persuaded that the applicant may not have been fairly evaluated by the additional rater/reviewer at the time the report was rendered.