ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01126
INDEX CODE: 111.01
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Airman Performance Report (APR) rendered for the period 17 May
88 through 7 Mar 89 be declared void and removed from his records
and that he be granted immediate promotion to the grade of chief
master sergeant.
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
In an application, dated 20 Apr 98, the applicant requested that his
APRs closing 16 May 88 and 7 Mar 89 be declared void and removed
from his records.
On 3 Jun 99, the Board granted applicant’s request for removal of
the APR closing 16 May 88 (see Exhibit I).
On 8 Feb 00, the applicant provided a four-page statement and
requested the Board reconsider removal of the APR closing 7 Mar 89
from his records and grant him immediate promotion to the grade of
chief master sergeant (see Exhibit J).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The purpose of his submission is to provide additional evidence that
will justify removal of the APR closing 7 Mar 89 from his records
and grant him immediate promotion to the grade of chief master
sergeant. He states, in part, that he noted that the Board’s
conclusions and recommendations mirrored those found in
AFPC/DPPPAB’s letter, dated xx xx xx, in which they recommended
denial of his submission due to lack of merit. He believes that
AFPC/DPPPAB’s evaluation fell short because they made no attempt to
verify official documentation available to them that proves the
7 Mar 89 APR is invalid and inaccurate. Furthermore, he was
disturbed greatly by the fact that AFPC/DPPPAB offered no
justification as to why Colonel M----‘s and Chief Master Sergeant
(CMSgt) C----‘s request for removal of the contested APR were not
honored. Instead of facts, AFPC/DPPPAB used opinions and
assumptions that appear to question the mental competence and
integrity of Colonel M---- and CMSgt C----, who have been unwavering
in their support of his appeal. He states that the 7 Mar 89 APR is
a negative factor against him in any promotional process. He is
providing additional discussion and documents to validate his
contention that the 120-day period of supervision is not correct.
He asks the Board to receive the new information and be open minded
to its contents and not allow AFPC/DPPPAB’s letter to influence
their decision in granting him true justice.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice warranting
removal of the APR closing 7 Mar 89. After careful consideration of
applicant’s request and the most recent evidence submitted,
including the additional statement from the rater of the report in
question, we are not sufficiently persuaded that a revision of the
earlier determination in regard to the APR closing 7 Mar 89 is
warranted. In our opinion, the rater was responsible for assessing
applicant’s performance during the period in question and is
presumed to have rendered his evaluation based on his observation of
the applicant’s performance. There is nothing in the evidence
provided to indicate that the rater was unable to render an
independent assessment of the applicant’s performance.
Consequently, we do not believe the rater’s statement substantiates
to our satisfaction that he did not have the required number of days
of supervision as stipulated by Air Force regulation or that the
contested report closing 7 Mar 89 is inaccurate as written. To the
contrary, it appears that the contested report as rendered was based
on applicant’s performance during the time period and we find no
evidence of an injustice. In view of the foregoing, the earlier
decision to deny applicant's request for removal of the 7 Mar 89 APR
is affirmed.
2. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance, with or without counsel, will
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 29 March 2000, under the provisions of Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:
Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member
Ms. Barbara White-Olson, Member
The following additional documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit I. ROP, dated 9 Jul 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit J. Letter fr applicant, dated 8 Feb 00, w/atchs.
MARTHA MAUST
Panel Chair
On 8 Feb 00, the applicant provided a four-page statement and requested the Board reconsider removal of the APR closing 7 Mar 89 from his records and grant him immediate promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant (see Exhibit J). The applicant is requesting the AFBCMR void his Airman Performance Report (APRs) closing 16 May 88 and 7 Mar 89. Based on the evidence provided, our recommendations are appropriate.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01126
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
The applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested EPR. The applicant contends that the contested report was rendered as a direct result of an Article 15. MARTHA MAUST ' P a n e l C h a i r 7 t DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC mice of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-02061 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...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02200
The applicant’s request under AFI 36-2401 to have the contested EPR removed from his records was denied by the ERAB. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-02200 in Executive Session on 8 October 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair Ms. Martha Maust, Member Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member By majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application. Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-01069
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, provided comments addressing supplemental promotion consideration. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant provided a supporting statement from his commander, who is also the indorser on the proposed reaccomplished...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, provided comments addressing supplemental promotion consideration. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant provided a supporting statement from his commander, who is also the indorser on the proposed reaccomplished...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00335
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00335 INDEX NUMBER: 111.00 XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered on him for the period 16 Jun 01 through 15 Jun 02 be voided and removed from his record. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that should the Board void the report closing 1 March 1997 as requested, and direct the report closing 1 August 1996 be made a matter of record, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 97E7. Based on the documentation submitted, it...