ADDENDUM TO
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:
His records be corrected to show that he was promoted to the grade of
master sergeant (E-7) during cycle 98E7 and that at the time of his
retirement on 1 July 2001, he retired in the grade of master sergeant,
rather than technical sergeant.
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 31 May 2000, the Board favorably considered applicant’s request that his
Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) closing 26 June 1992 and 26 June 1993,
be changed from “4s” to “5s” and that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant commencing
with cycle 94A6.
On 21 July 2000, the applicant was supplementally considered and selected
for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for cycle 94A6 and his
date of rank (DOR) was adjusted to 1 December 1995. As a result of an
earlier DOR, he was eligible for promotion consideration to the grade of
master sergeant beginning with cycle 98E7.
On 15 November 2000, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request
that he be promoted to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) during cycle 98E7
through the correction of records process. 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 Year Tenure (HYT) date of June 2001 and
approved retirement date of 1 July 2001. In order for him to be eligible
for consideration during cycle 01E7, he would have to apply and be approved
for HYT extension (up to 2 years for TSgt) and withdraw his retirement
package.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit H.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the evaluation and states that he has lost, through
wrongdoing by the Air Force, any opportunity to compete for promotion to
the grade of master sergeant (i.e., cycles 98E7, 99E7, 00E7, & 01E7). Due
to his current HYT and retirement these opportunities are non-existent. He
is currently employed in the civilian sector and is not willing to apply
for an extension of his HYT.
The applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit I.
_________________________________________________________________
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 warranting his promotion to the
grade of master sergeant through the correction of records process. The
Board previously determined that the applicant had been denied fair and
equitable promotion consideration during cycles 98E7, 99E7, and 00E7, and
provided him supplemental promotion consideration for these cycles using
his most recent test scores (i.e., cycle 01E7). However, AFPC/DPPPWB, has
indicated that the applicant was ineligible to test for cycle 01E7 because
of his High Year Tenure (HYT) date of June 2001 and approved retirement
date of 1 July 2001. As a result, there are no recent test scores
available for his supplemental promotion consideration. In order for him
to be eligible for promotion consideration during cycle 01E7, he would have
to apply, and be approved, for a HYT extension (up to 2 years for TSgt) and
withdraw his retirement package. The applicant, however, has indicated
that he is unwilling to do so because he is currently employed in the
civilian sector. Had the applicant chosen to request a HYT waiver and
withdraw his retirement, he could have been provided sufficient time to
prepare for promotion testing, test for cycle 01E7 and receive supplemental
promotion consideration for cycles 98E7, 99E7 and 00E7. We are not
persuaded the applicant has provided sufficient documentation to
substantiate that he should have been a selectee during any of the subject
cycles. 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.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the additional 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 24 August 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member
Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit G. Record of Proceedings, dated 15 May 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit H. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 31 May 01, w/atch.
Exhibit I. Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Jun 01.
JOSEPH A. ROJ
Panel Chair
In this respect, we note that the applicant was supplementally considered, and selected for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant during cycle 95E6. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
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.
The applicant had not requested supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to master sergeant (MSgt) and, by the time his case was considered, he had retired on 1 Jul 99 in the grade of TSgt with 21 years and 4 days of active service. A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit E. On 9 Feb 00, the applicant submitted an addendum to his original appeal. Mr. Wheeler voted to include the AM for consideration in the TSgt and MSgt promotion cycles with subsequent...
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...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, evaluated this application and provided the following information regarding the impact of the two EPRs on the applicant’s promotion consideration: The first time the two EPRs impacted the applicant’s promotion consideration was cycle 94A6 to TSgt (promotions effective Aug 93–Jul 94). We therefore recommend that the contested reports be corrected as indicated...
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...
Should the board void the report entirely, or upgrade his EPR closing 31 Aug 99, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 00E7 promotion cycle to master sergeant. A complete copy of the advisory is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 August 2001, for review and response within...
On 22 July 1999, the applicant’s commander imposed nonjudicial punishment on the applicant, who was then serving in the grade of technical sergeant, for making a false official statement. The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant's medical condition was a direct and substantial causative factor for the behavior that lead to his nonjudicial punishment. The BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFLSA/JAJM...