RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02194
INDEX NUMBER: 111.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Eleven bullet statements contained in his Enlisted Performance
Report (EPR) that closed out on 23 Jan 00 be removed or, in the
alternative, the entire report be voided.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The EPR is inaccurate and gives him credit for achievements that he
did not accomplish.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of
master sergeant. His Total Active Federal Military Service Date
(TAFMSD) is 20 May 1981. A profile of the applicant’s last ten
EPRs follows:
Period Ending Evaluation
**23 Jan 00 4
31 Aug 99 5
31 Aug 98 5
31 Aug 97 5
13 Dec 96 5
13 Dec 95 5
02 Mar 95 5
02 Mar 94 5
02 Mar 93 4
02 Mar 92 5
** EPR in question.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB,
evaluated this application and defers to the recommendation of the
Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPAB, below.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPAB evaluated this application and recommends denial of the
applicant’s request. A similar application was denied by the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board in a decision letter dated 5 Jul 00
(copy attached). The applicant has failed to provide any
information/support from the rating chain on the contested EPR. In
the absence of information from evaluators, official substantiation
of error or injustice from the Inspector General (IG) or Military
Equal Opportunity is appropriate, but not provided in this case.
The applicant was advised to attempt to obtain evaluator support.
In the event he could not, then he was advised he could request a
formal investigation. There is no evidence provided that he has
requested an investigation.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations and stated
that both evaluations contained several errors and important items
not mentioned that support his case. The applicant provided
rebuttal to six points contained in the evaluation done by
AFPC/DPPPAB and states that the issue of promotion consideration
covered in the AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is not applicable to him
since he has already submitted his retirement paperwork with a
retirement date of 1 June 2001.
The applicant’s complete submission is 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. 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 office of primary responsibility and adopt their
rationale as the basis for our 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 issues 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 9 November 2000, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. George Franklin, Member
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Aug 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 31 Aug 00.
Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 14 Sep 00, w/atch.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 29 Sep 00.
Exhibit F. Memorandum, APPLICANT, dated 29 Sep 00, w/atchs.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that based on the applicant’s date of rank (DOR) for senior master sergeant (E-8), the first time the contested report will be considered in the promotion process is Cycle 98E9 to chief master sergeant (E-9), promotions effective Jan 99 - Dec 99. A copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C. The Directorate of Personnel...
On 6 Jun 95, he was given a specific order by the Operations Officer to disconnect a specific telephone (designated for data transmission) and to not use that line for telephone calls. On 26 Jul 95, the applicant received notification from his commander that he was not being recommended for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for cycle 95E7. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that should the...
Applicant's EPR profile follows: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION 6 Oct 95 3 * 6 Oct 96 3 * Contested report On 11 Aug 97, Applicant was notified that her commander was recommending she be discharged with service characterized as general for minor disciplinary infractions. As a result of the administrative discharge action on 11 Aug 97, the applicant was also ineligible for promotion. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant...
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...
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. A complete copy of the DPPPAB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated that he is providing all the applicable documents concerning his request to have the contested report corrected. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) Memorandum, dated 7 Jun 00, directing that the applicant be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant. Regarding the supplemental promotion consideration, the Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch (AFPC/DPPPWB)...
A complete copy of the DPPPAB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 26 Jul 99 for review and response. After reviewing all of the evidence provided, we are unpersuaded that the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of the applicant’s performance and demonstrated potential for the period in question. Exhibit C. Letter,...
Period Ending Evaluation 4 Mar 94 5 - Immediate Promotion 22 Sep 94 5 8 Aug 95 5 * 2 Nov 95 3 - Consider for Promotion 2 Nov 96 5 15 Nov 97 5 26 Jun 98 5 1 Nov 98 5 * Contested referral report On 23 October 1995, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) for committing the following offenses: making a false official statement to his squadron commander regarding the amount of funds in his bank account; presenting false official documents...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00257 COUNSEL: GARY N. MYERS HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 23 March 1999 to 25 April 2000 be expunged from his records. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFMPC/DPPPWB, also...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00257 COUNSEL: GARY N. MYERS HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 23 March 1999 to 25 April 2000 be expunged from his records. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFMPC/DPPPWB, also...