RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01727
INDEX CODE: 131.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The certificate for the Lieutenant General Charles H. Roadman II Award be
filed in his HQ Air Force (HAF) Selection folder and he be provided
supplemental promotion consideration to Chief Master Sergeant for the 00E9
cycle.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Due to administrative injustices and the close out date of his Enlisted
Performance Report (EPR), his Air Force Medical Service Award that was
awarded to him by the Air Force Surgeon General on 23 Dec 99, will not be
seen by the promotion board until two years after the date was awarded.
In support of his application, he submits a personal statement, copies of
his EPR dated 10 Jan 01, a Memo from LtGen C--, the LtGen Roadman II Award,
Mirror Force Award nomination letter, USAF SG fax of award nomination
package, Excerpt from AFI 36-2406 and a faxed letter from the 65th MDOS/CC
(Exhibit A).
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of senior
master sergeant. He was considered and non-selected for promotion to the
grade of chief master sergeant by the 00E9 Chief Evaluation Board that
convened on 23 Oct 00. The applicant’s board score was 360.00. His total
score was 629.79 and the score required for selection in his Chief Enlisted
Manager (CEM) Code was 636.12. Since his last promotion, the applicant has
received 4 Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) in which the overall
evaluations were “5s.”
On 23 Dec 99 the applicant was awarded the Lieutenant General Charles H.
Roadman II Award for Outstanding Mirror Force Contribution to the Air Force
Medical Service for the period 1 Oct 98 through 30 Sep 99.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Selection Board Secretariat, AFPC/DPPB, does not support the
applicant’s request to insert the award certificate from the LtGen
Charles Roadman II Outstanding Mirror Force Award into his
Noncommissioned Officer Selection Record (NSR) on two grounds. DPPB
states that the requested remedy is not allowed per AFI 36-2608, Military
Personnel Records System and AFI 36-3502, Airman Promotion Program. The
AFIs govern what is included in the NSR and what may be considered for
promotion. DPPB indicates that while the award is certainly worthy of
consideration, it is not a personal decoration as defined by AFI 36-2803,
Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, and is not listed in AFI 36-
2608 as being filed in the NSR. Therefore, DPPB recommends the request
be denied (Exhibit C).
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed the applicant’s submission and recommended
denial. DPPPWB states that each promotion cycle has an established
Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) which is used to determine which
Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) or Chief Enlisted Manger (CEM) Code the
member will be considered for, as well as which performance reports and
decorations will be used in the promotion process. The PECD for the 00E9
cycle was 31 Jul 00. Based on AFPC/DPPPEP Memorandum, 6 Aug 01, the
award was not eligible for inclusion in the EPR closing 10 Nov 99 (this
EPR was eligible for consideration for the 00E9 Cycle) because it was not
approved until 23 Dec 99, after the closeout date of the EPR. Since the
award is documented in the EPR closing 10 Nov 00, it will be eligible for
consideration for the 01E9 Evaluation Board which will convene on 9 Oct
01 (Exhibit D).
The Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, indicates that the
applicant’s request that the certificate for the LtGen Charles H. Roadman
II Award be placed in his Senior NCO Selection Folder is not a valid
request. The evaluators documented the award in the applicant’s EPR
closing 10 Nov 00, Section V, Line 1. Since the award was approved on 23
Dec 99, it was not available to be included in a previous report.
Therefore, DPPPEP recommends the applicant’s request be denied (Exhibit
E).
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and continues to contend
that his rating chain at the time of the award had no knowledge of the
award submission. He further indicates that he is not challenging the
accuracy of his EPR or the ratings, just the injustice of information not
being visible to the promotion board due to the assignment action of his
supervisor (Exhibit G).
___________________________________________________________________
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 supplemental promotion
consideration to chief master sergeant. The Board took note that according
to AFI 36-2803 and AFI 36-2608 the LtG Charles Roadman II Outstanding
Mirror Force Award, while worthy of consideration, is not defined as a
personal decoration and thus not required to be filed into the applicant’s
Noncommissioned Officer Selection Record (NSR). However, the award has
been documented in the applicant’s Enlisted Performance Report (EPR)
closing 10 November 2001 and will be eligible for consideration for the
01E9 Evaluation Board. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 26 September 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Gregory Petkoff, Panel Chair
Mr. George Franklin, Member
Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jun 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 16 Jul 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 5 Sep 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 6 Aug 01.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 17 Aug 01.
Exhibit G. Applicant’s Response, dated 20 Sep 01.
GREGORY PETKOFF
Panel Chair
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, advises that supplemental promotion consideration is normally not granted if the error or omission appeared on a member’s Data Verification Record (DVR) or in the Unit Personnel Record Group (UPRG) and the individual did not take the appropriate corrective or follow-up action before the original promotion board convened. The Board majority cannot...
Too much emphasis was placed on a Letter of Admonition (LOA); there was bias by the additional rater; and, the number of days of supervision is incorrect. The HQ AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 01E7 to master sergeant (E-7), promotions effective Aug 01 - Jul 02. However, they do not, in the Board majority’s opinion, support a finding that the evaluators were unable to...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02650
He retired from the Air Force on 31 Jul 03. DPPP states he was time-in-grade eligible for senior rater endorsement based on the new DOR at the time of the 30 Sep 01 report. In this respect, we note that based on the applicant’s original 1 Jun 01 date of rank (DOR) to the grade of senior master sergeant, he was ineligible for promotion consideration to the grade of chief master sergeant prior to his 31 Jul 03 retirement.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01787
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01787 (Case 2) INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 7 DECEMBER 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: By amendment at Exhibit E, she requests supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of chief master sergeant (E-9), with the corrected EPR, closing 14 May 2000. ...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB addressed the supplemental promotion consideration issue should the applicant’s request be approved. DPPPWB stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 97E5 to staff sergeant (E-5), promotions effective Sep 97 - Aug 98. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Having...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02406
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02406 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 29 January 2000 through 28 January 2001 be declared void and replaced with a reaccomplished report. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02492 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 3 Mar 99 through 14 Oct 99 be declared void and removed from his records and restoration of his promotion to technical sergeant from the 99E6 promotion cycle, including back...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that a servicing MPF fails to respond to an official AFPC request for required documents on eligible members should not negatively impact any member’s full promotion consideration. The Air Force states that the citation for the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03175
The procedures used to score the records ensure each panel member scores each record independently and fairly. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant discusses his knowledge of and past support of the Air Force promotion process in his duties as a first sergeant. In his appeal it appears the applicant seeks to indict the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01161
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Applicant states that no documented evidence exists that his performance had been anything less than exceptional. With the exception of the contested EPR closing 25 January 2000, applicant’s performance report from 1992 reflect an overall rating of “5”. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed this application and indicates that...