Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 9900735A
Original file (9900735A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                                 ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00735
                                        INDEX CODE:  131.09

                                        COUNSEL:  ALISON L. RUTTENBERG

                                        HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

On 21 Mar 00, the Board considered an application  pertaining  to  the
subject applicant, in which he requested that his Enlisted Performance
Report (EPR) rendered for the period 21 Aug 94 through 25  Jul  95  be
declared void and  removed  from  his  records,  and  his  records  be
corrected to reflect that he was  promoted  to  the  grade  of  master
sergeant effective and with date of rank (DOR) of  1  Aug  95,  rather
than 1 Aug 97, with back pay and  allowances.   The  Board  determined
that his military records should be corrected to  show  that  the  EPR
closing 25 Jul 95, the Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and Nonrecommendation
for Promotion Letter, dated 26 Jul 95, were voided  and  removed  from
his records, and, that he was promoted to the grade of master sergeant
with an effective date and date of rank of 1 Aug 95, rather than 1 Aug
97.   The  Board  further  determined  that  he  should  be   provided
supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master
sergeant for all appropriate cycles  beginning  with  cycle  98E8.   A
complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached  at  Exhibit  G
(with Exhibits A through F).

_________________________________________________________________

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.  According to DPPPWB,  because  the  applicant
was ineligible for consideration for promotion to the grade of  senior
master sergeant prior to his retirement date  of  1 Aug 99,  he  never
took the USAF Supervisory Examination (USAFSE), which is  an  integral
part of the weighted factors and Senior Noncommissioned Officer  (NCO)
selection promotion process.  Without  a  USAFSE  test  score,  DPPPWB
indicated it is not possible to  provide  the  applicant  supplemental
consideration for any previous promotion  cycles.   The  total  USAFSE
score and the score of the other weighted factors, is subtracted  from
the cutoff score required for selection in the member’s promotion  Air
Force Specialty Code (AFSC) to determine what  board  score  he  would
have required to be selected during  the  initial  selection  process.
The board score  he  needed  to  be  selected  also  determines  which
benchmark records would be used as a basis of  comparison  during  the
supplemental selection process.  Without a USAFSE test  score,  it  is
not possible to apply the mechanics of this process  and  provide  the
applicant the supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of
senior master sergeant as directed by the AFBCMR memorandum.

A complete copy of the DPPPWB letter is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

A copy of the DPPPWB letter was provided to the applicant  for  review
and comments.  As of this date, no response has been received by  this
office (Exhibit I).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  In earlier findings, we determined that  the  applicant’s  records
should be corrected to show that an EPR closing 25 Jul 95, and an  LOR
and Nonrecommendation for Promotion Letter,  dated  26  Jul  95,  were
voided and removed from his records, and, that he was promoted to  the
grade of master sergeant with an effective date and date of rank of  1
Aug 95.  The Board further  determined  that  he  should  be  provided
supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master
sergeant  for  all  appropriate  cycles  beginning  with  cycle  98E8.
Regarding  the  supplemental  promotion  consideration,  the  Enlisted
Promotion and Military Testing Branch (AFPC/DPPPWB) has  advised  that
because the applicant was ineligible for consideration  for  promotion
to the grade of senior master sergeant prior to his  retirement  date,
he never took the USAF Supervisory Examination, which is  an  integral
part of the weighted factors and senior noncommissioned officer (SNCO)
selection promotion process.  Without a test score,  DPPPWB  indicated
that it is not possible to provide  the  applicant  with  supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of  senior  master  sergeant.
The applicant has been so advised but as of this date, no response has
been received from him indicating his desires concerning this  matter.
Therefore,  this  case  is  again  presented  to  this  Board  for   a
determination whether the applicant should be directly promoted to the
grade of senior master sergeant.  We note that promotion to the  grade
of senior master  sergeant  is  a  two-phase  process.   It  not  only
involves a consideration of the weighted factors, but also  a  central
evaluation  board.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the   facts   and
circumstances of this case, no evidence has been presented which would
lead us to believe that had the applicant been  allowed  to  test  and
been eligible for consideration for promotion to the grade  of  senior
master sergeant, he would have  been  a  selectee.   In  view  of  the
foregoing, and in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  the
applicant’s direct promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant is
not favorably considered.

2.  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 22 Feb 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
      Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit G.  Record of Proceedings, dated 7 Jun 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 10 Aug 00.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 5 Sep 00.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02650

    Original file (BC-2005-02650.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    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-2003-00215

    Original file (BC-2003-00215.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00215 INDEX CODE: 111.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Board staff was advised by AFPC/DPPPWB they were unable to comply with the Board’s directive to provide supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt). ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900735

    Original file (9900735.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9800251

    Original file (9800251.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00251 INDEX CODES: 131.00, 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect the effective date for his promotion to the grade of master sergeant as 1 Apr 96, rather than 1 Nov 97, with back and allowances. DPPPWB believes the applicant needs to provide a copy of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100831

    Original file (0100831.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 Apr 99, the Deputy for Air Force Review Boards directed the applicant be promoted to E-8, with an effective date of 1 Feb 88, and that his grade at the time he was relieved from active duty and ultimately retired was E-8 rather than E-7; and, that his narrative reason for separation be changed to “voluntary retirement.” The applicant has provided a copy of the Record of Proceedings (ROP), Docket Number 98- 02050, at Exhibit A. On 12 Apr 99, the AFBCMR promoted him to senior master...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803077

    Original file (9803077.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    DPPPWB stated a review of the applicant’s HQ Air Force Selection Folder reflects that the citation for the JSAM was filed in his selection folder on 16 October 1998. Therefore, a majority of the Board recommends that the applicant be given supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant with the citation for the JSAM included in his records. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9702663

    Original file (9702663.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit H. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that while it is true that he was ineligible for promotion consideration during cycle 9737, his request is to be considered by cycle 9539, a cycle for which he was eligible, but for which he was not given the opportunity to compete. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that applicant should be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803192

    Original file (9803192.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    In her rebuttal to the Air Force evaluations (Exhibit F), applicant submitted an amended application and requested that the date of the commander’s indorsement on the DECOR-6 (Recommendation for Decoration Printout) (RDP) be changed from 18 May 1998 to 23 October 1997 and that the MSM be considered in the promotion process for cycle 98E8 to Senior Master Sergeant. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0002092

    Original file (0002092.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s records under this selection process must be better than all the records below the board score required for selection and equal to or better than at least one of the records that had the board score needed for promotion. If the applicant had been considered by the initial 00E8 Evaluation Board he would have needed a board score of 352.50 to have been selected. During the supplemental process, his records were benchmarked with three records that a received a 352.50 board...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0001985

    Original file (0001985.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01985 COUNSEL: FRED L. BAUER HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) closing out 31 August 1997, 31 August 1996, and 31 March 1995 be removed; the denial of reenlistment be nullified and he be given full credit for the time since his forced separation toward retirement, with...