RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01077
INDEX CODE: 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His promotion date verification record (DVR) for promotion cycle 01E9
be corrected to reflect his current assignment level status.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or
unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by
the appropriate office of the Air Force.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB states that the applicant’s HQ Air Force Selection Folder
reflects the duty level on his Senior NCO Evaluation Brief as
“Student” instead of “Wing/Base” as it should. The fact he was a
First Sergeant was shown on the brief. In addition, his last Senior
Enlisted Performance Report closing 12 March 2001 shows his duty title
as First Sergeant and what his duties as a First Sergeant were. The
rater refers to him as the “perfect First Sergeant”, the additional
rater refers to him as “number one first Sergeant he had seen in 24
years,” and the Senior Rater states he was the 62nd Airlift Wing First
Sergeant of the year.” They note there was absolutely no doubt when
the evaluation board members reviewed the applicant’s record and
assigned the 360.00 board score, it was with full knowledge that his
level of duty was not a student.
AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 2.5, 20 August 2001,
outlines the reasons for supplemental promotion consideration. The
level of duty assignement that is in error is not considered (based on
input from board members) as something so significant that it would
warrant supplemental consideration. They state that this is
especially true in this case as it is evident the correct level of
duty assignment is either base or wing. Therefore, they recommend
denial of applicant’s request. A complete copy of the evaluation is
attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 26 April 2002, a complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. As
of this date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Staff
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
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 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 on 12
June 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
Mr. James E. Short, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Mar 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 8 Apr 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Apr 02.
DAVID W. MULGREW
Panel Chair
___________________________________________________________________ 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...
The applicant filed an appeal under AFI 36- 2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board ( E m ) . A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORC E EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the evaluations and has provided comments to each paragraph of the evaluation concerning the removal of the contested report. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 21 Apr 98.
On 28 Nov 95, the Board granted applicant’s request for removal of the APR closing 30 Oct 87 and recommended that he be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of chief master sergeant for all appropriate cycles commencing with cycle 90S9 (Exhibit J). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the applicant’s request and indicated that he was selected for promotion to...
On 28 Nov 95, the Board granted applicant’s request for removal of the APR closing 30 Oct 87 and recommended that he be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of chief master sergeant for all appropriate cycles commencing with cycle 90S9 (Exhibit J). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the applicant’s request and indicated that he was selected for promotion to...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1991-02143A
On 28 Nov 95, the Board granted applicant’s request for removal of the APR closing 30 Oct 87 and recommended that he be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of chief master sergeant for all appropriate cycles commencing with cycle 90S9 (Exhibit J). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the applicant’s request and indicated that he was selected for promotion to...
The report was forwarded for senior rater endorsement and signed, dated 14 June 1997. The reaccomplished EPR should be removed from his record and replaced with the initial EPR signed and dated 2 June 1997, which accurately reflected his duty performance during the period in question. EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries, AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that the first time the report was considered in the...
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...
After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded at this time that the contested EPR should be amended to reflect a senior rater indorsement. We also note the applicant had completed Senior NCO Academy and, except for the report in question, received senior rater indorsements on his EPRs since 5 Nov 97. Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 May 02.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2006-01516
She believes if the awards were included in her EPR, her board score would have been higher and she subsequently would have been promoted to senior master sergeant during the 04E8 cycle. She believes the advisor inaccurately states she was considered for promotion three times after her EPR became a matter of record. It is further recommended that she be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) for promotion cycle 04E8.