ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03241
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period
12 Dec 95 through 11 Dec 96 be declared void and removed from her
records.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 9 May 01, the Board considered an application pertaining to the
applicant, in which she requested that her EPR closing 11 Dec 96 be
voided and removed from her records in its entirety. The Board
recommended that the report only be amended. The Board’s
recommendation was accepted by the Director, Air Force Review Board’s
Agency on 22 Jun 01. The relevant facts pertaining to the applicant’s
original application and the rationale for the earlier decision by the
Board are contained in the Record of Proceedings, which is attached at
Exhibit H.
On 13 Aug 01, the applicant requested reconsideration of the
application, indicating that she believes the Board’s decision not to
void the contested EPR was based solely on the fact that she tested
positive during a urinalysis and, therefore, assumed marijuana
usage. Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit I.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. After a thorough review of
the applicant’s most recent submission, specifically, the statement
from her Area Defense Counsel (ADC), we are of the opinion that the
contested EPR was not an accurate depiction of her performance at the
time it was rendered. We previously noted that the applicant’s
conviction by Special Court-Martial for wrongful use of marijuana was
set aside by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
as a result of an error made by the judge to allow inadmissible
evidence. The applicant has been subsequently retried for this
offense and found not guilty on the merits. Since the EPR was based
on her conviction by court-martial for her use of the illicit drug,
equity dictates that any doubt concerning the fairness and accuracy of
the report should be resolved in favor of the applicant. Accordingly,
we recommend that the EPR closing 11 Dec 96 be voided and removed from
her records. We further recommend that she be provided supplemental
promotion consideration with her corrected records, beginning with
cycle 97E6.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Enlisted
Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 12 Dec 95
through 11 Dec 96 be declared void and removed from her records.
It is further recommended that she be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for all
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 97E6.
If selected for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant by
supplemental consideration, she be provided any additional
supplemental consideration required as a result of that selection.
If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated
to the issues involved in this application that would have rendered
the applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be
documented and presented to the Board for a final determination on the
individual's qualifications for the promotion.
If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the
records shall be corrected to show that she was promoted to the higher
grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion
and that she is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such
grade as of that date.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 27 Sep 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member
Ms. Mary C. Johnson, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following additional documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit H. Record of Proceedings, dated 22 Jun 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit I. Letter, applicant, dated 13 Aug 01, w/atchs.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
AFBCMR 00-03241
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 , be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance
Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 12 Dec 95 through 11 Dec
96 be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from her records.
It is further directed that she be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for all
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 97E6.
If selected for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant by
supplemental consideration, she be provided any additional
supplemental consideration required as a result of that selection.
If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated
to the issues involved in this application that would have rendered
the applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be
documented and presented to the Board for a final determination on the
individual's qualifications for the promotion.
If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection
for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion
the records shall be corrected to show that she was promoted to the
higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental
promotion and that she is entitled to all pay, allowances, and
benefits of such grade as of that date.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
If the referral EPR closing 11 Dec 96 is removed as requested, the applicant would normally be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration to technical sergeant beginning with the 97E6 cycle provided she is recommended by her commander and is otherwise qualified. However, as a result of her circumstances, the applicant has not received an EPR subsequent to the referral EPR (reason for ineligibility), has not taken the required promotion tests, and has not been considered or recommended...
Except for the contested report and a 2 Dec 91 EPR having an overall rating of “4,” all of the applicant’s performance reports since Dec 90 have had overall ratings of “5.” Since the Article 15’s suspended reduction expired on 12 Aug 96, prior to the 31 Dec 96 Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for promotion cycle 97E6, the Article 15 did not affect the applicant’s eligibility for promotion consideration to technical sergeant for that cycle. ...
Given that both the commander and first sergeant were present, significant deference should be given to the commander’s determination that the applicant’s actions and words were disrespectful. If the applicant is returned to active duty without a break in service, the referral EPR removed from his records, the two Article 15s set aside, all derogatory data/information expunged from his records (UIF, Control Roster, LOR), providing the AFBCMR directs supplemental promotion consideration, he...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00944 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) he has provided, rendered for the period 2 Jul 95 through 27 Nov 95, be added to his official personnel record. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 97E6 to technical sergeant (E-6), promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98. It is noted that the applicant will become a selectee for promotion during this cycle if the Board grants his request, pending a favorable data verification check and the recommendation of...
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. On 30 Sep 99, applicant’s supervisor did not recommend her for reenlistment due to the referral EPR. A complete copy of the their evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a five-page letter responding to the advisory opinions.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 95E6 to technical sergeant (promotions effective August 95 - July 1996). A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation and...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03357
CLOSING DATE OVERALL EVALUATION 31 Dec 03 5 31 Dec 02 5 31 Dec 01 4 (Contested) 15 Nov 00 5 31 Dec 99 5 1 May 99 5 1 May 98 5 1 May 97 5 1 May 96 5 1 May 95 5 The applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions of AFI 36- 2401. He further contended he had only 48 days of supervision with the rater of the 31 Dec 01 EPR, and that the closeout date was changed from 15 Nov 01 to 31 Dec 01. If the applicant received a new rater in Jul 01 as the Air Force asserts, then the EPR’s reporting...
The commander coerced her rater and withheld information from the endorser (squadron commander) and rater, creating an inaccurate evaluation of her performance. The AFPC/DPPP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPWB states that based on the applicant’s date of rank to staff sergeant, the first time she was considered for promotion to technical sergeant was cycle 02E6. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Vice Chair AFBCMR 02-02518 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and...
She also states that she believes the report to be unjust because of the personality conflicts that existed between her, her rater, and her rater’s rater that exploded after she approached the squadron commander about unprofessional practices she observed going on in her workcenter. After reviewing the evidence of record, the Board is convinced that the contested report is not an accurate assessment of applicant's performance during the period in question. DOUGLAS J. HEADY Panel...