RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02106
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He automatically be promoted to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) for the
1998 cycle due to his recent supplemental promotion to the grade of
technical sergeant (E-6).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He missed three opportunities to test for master sergeant because of an
illegal policy by Air Education and Training Command (AETC) to give new
instructors “4” Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs).
As a result of the Board’s consideration of his earlier appeal, his EPRs,
closing 26 June 1992 and 26 June 1993, were changed from “4s” to “5s” and
he was considered for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant
commencing with cycle 94A6. He was selected for an earlier promotion to
technical sergeant and his date of rank (DOR) was changed to 1 December
1995. This made him eligible for promotion to master sergeant in 1998
(Exhibit C).
He contacted Promotion and Testing at Randolph AFB, Texas and they informed
him that he would be given 30 days to prepare for master sergeant testing
and that his score would be applied to the 1998, 1999, and 2000 test
cycles. He was told there was no Air Force Instruction (AFI) covering his
situation and their justification was “this is the way it has always been
done.”
In support of his request, applicant submits documents associated with the
consideration of his earlier appeal, a message announcing his selection to
technical sergeant, and an extract of AFI 36-2605.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of technical
sergeant. He was selected for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant
during the 98E6 cycle, with a DOR and effective date of 1 September 1998.
In December 1998, the applicant appealed to the Evaluation Reports Appeal
Board (ERAB) to change the overall evaluations on his EPRs, closing 26 June
1992 and 26 June 1993, from a “4” to a “5.” On 26 January 1999,the ERAB
denied his appeal. His requests were considered and approved by the Board
on 31 May 2000 (Exhibit C).
On 21 July 2000, as a result the Board’s decision, the applicant was
considered for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant and was
selected for the 95E6 cycle. As a result of his selection, his effective
date and DOR for technical sergeant were changed from 1 September 1998 to 1
December 1995.
The applicant has a projected retirement date of 1 July 2001 based on his
High Year of Tenure (HYT).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion and Military
Testing, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the application and states that promotion
tests are valid starting on the day following the cycle’s Promotion
Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) and expire on the day of the next cycle’s
PECD. Since he had not originally been eligible for consideration for
promotion to master sergeant during the 98E7, 99E7 and 00E7 cycles, he had
not take the required tests. In view of the requirement for supplemental
promotion consideration for these cycles, his test scores from the current
cycle (i.e., 00E7) must be used. Tests from the 98E7 and 99E7 cycles
became obsolete and were destroyed. Obsolete tests are never administered
and used for supplemental consideration. This policy is neither arbitrary
or capricious. To promote the applicant would be unfair to his
contemporaries who, under similar circumstances, are provided supplemental
promotion consideration in accordance with the established policy and
procedures, and who may or may not be selected. Therefore, they recommend
the application be denied.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states, in part, that
he will not be afforded the same opportunity to test as everyone else who
did test during these cycles. If the Air Force gives him 30 days to
prepare for the tests, this means the Air Force is giving him a one-shot at
three opportunities that they illegally took from him. Furthermore, all of
his peers were given a minimum of three years to prepare for testing due to
the time between testing. He does not believe that giving him a one-time
good deal for three missed promotion opportunities is legal and, as of this
date, he has not been shown otherwise.
The applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice to warrant providing the applicant
supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant for
cycles 98E7, 99E7, and 00E7, using his test scores from the 01E7 cycle. In
this respect, we note that the applicant was supplementally considered, and
selected for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant during cycle
95E6. In view of this, he was eligible for supplemental promotion
consideration for cycles 98E7, 99E7, and 00E7. However, since he had not
originally been eligible for promotion consideration during these cycles,
his current test scores from cycle 01E7 were used. The applicant contends
that since all of his peers were given a minimum of three years to prepare
for testing, he has been denied the same opportunity to test. We agree.
As a result of his retroactive promotion, he was given 30 days in which to
prepare to test. While we recognize this is Air Force policy, we believe
the applicant has been denied fair and equipable consideration for
promotion during these cycles. In view of the above, we recommend he be
provided supplemental promotion consideration for these cycles using his
most recent test scores (i.e., cycle 01E7).
4. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice warranting his promotion to the
grade of master sergeant through the correction of records process. In
this regard, we note that applicant has failed to provide sufficient
documentation to substantiate that he should have been a selectee during
any of the subject cycles. We also note that NCOs compete for promotion,
in part, under the whole person concept whereby performance reports are but
one of many factors considered. Therefore, in the absence of clear-cut
evidence that he would have been a selectee by the cycles in question, we
find no basis upon which to recommend his promotion to the grade of master
sergeant through the correction of records process. We believe the
recommended corrections to his records will provide him fair and equitable
consideration for promotion.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for all
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 98E7 using his cycle 01E7 test
scores.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 15 November 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Benedict A. Kausal, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Aug 00.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Record of Proceedings, dated 26 Jun 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 17 Aug 00.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 8 Sep 00.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, undated.
JOSEPH A. ROJ
Acting Panel Chair
AFBCMR 00-02106
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 authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for all
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 98E7 using his cycle 01E7 test
scores.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
However, the Board did find sufficient evidence to warrant his supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for cycles 98E7, 99E7, and 00E7, using his test scores from cycle 01E7 (Exhibit G). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing, AFPC/DPPPWB, states that the applicant was ineligible to test for cycle 01E7 because of his High...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02286 COUNSEL: MAJ THOMAS L. FARMER HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive a direct promotion to master sergeant with an effective date of promotion and a date of rank as a promotee in the SDI 8J000, Correctional Custody career field for 1998 or 1999. The applicant believes that two of the...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His EPR should be removed from his records because the rater signed a blank form and the rater did not intend to give him an overall rating of “4.” In support of his request applicant submits a copy of the contested EPR; personal statements from the rater and indorser; a copy of the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) decision; and an AF Form 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet. The following is a...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2001-01974
The applicant contends that his hypothyroidism caused him to gain weight while on active duty which resulted in his demotion. While his failure to maintain Air Force weight standards was the basis for his demotion, records indicate new weight baselines were frequently established and only after repeated failures did the commander initiate demotion action. Exhibit B.
Current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36-2502, Table 2.2, Rule 5, Note 2) dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close-out date of the decoration must be on or before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD), and the date of the DECOR-6, Recommendation for Decoration Printout (RDP) must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. This decoration does not meet the criteria for promotion credit during the 00E7 cycle, because...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02607
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02607 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 Feb 07 __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the grade of master sergeant (MSgt) (E-7) as if selected during cycle 00E7. If the applicant had been promoted during cycle 00E7, his date of rank...
Therefore, DPPPAB recommended the Board direct the removal of the mid-term feedback date from the contested EPR and add the following statement: “Ratee has established that no mid-term feedback session was provided in accordance with AFI 36-2403.” A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 10 Sep 99 for review and response. The mid-term feedback date be removed...
When requesting an entire report be voided, the applicant must take into consideration that any complimentary comments on the contested report will also be removed from the records if the request is approved. The report can be corrected administratively by changing the rater’s grade to master sergeant, closing the EPR on 9 October 1997 (the day before the member was demoted and moved to another section), and the “number days” supervision to 192. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation...
For a decoration to be credited for the 00E7 cycle, the closeout date must be on or before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD) of 31 Dec 99 and must have been placed into official channels prior to the promotion selection date of 31 May 00. The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations by indicating that he...
Had the decoration been properly processed after submission, he would have received the decoration before the PECD date and would have been selected for promotion. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Inquires/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, indicates that current Air Force promotion policy dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close-out date of the decoration must be on or before the promotion...