RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01492
INDEX CODE 111.02
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Section IX, Time-in-Grade Eligible, of the Enlisted Performance Report
(EPR) closing 24 Oct 01 reflect “No” rather than “Yes.”
_________________________________________________________________
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:
HQ AFPC/DPPPEP notes the applicant contends she was not time-in-grade
(TIG) eligible to receive senior rater indorsement based on her date
of rank (DOR). However, because the EPR closed out after 30 Sep,
eligibility is determined by the number of months TIG from DOR to 1
Mar XX (two years following the report closeout date, or 1 Mar 03 in
this case). Since the applicant’s DOR for master sergeant is 1 Oct 00,
subtract 1 Oct 00 from 1 Mar 03. If the remaining months are greater
than 20 (in this case it is 29 months), then the member is TIG
eligible for senior rater indorsement. Denial is recommended.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 19 Jul 02 for review and comment within 30 days. As of
this date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The applicant was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded
that Section IX of the 24 Oct 01 EPR should reflect she was not TIG-
eligible for a senior rater indorsement. Applicant’s contentions are
duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the Air Force. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the
Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having
suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and
absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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 in
Executive Session on 19 September 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Edward C. Koenig III, Panel Chair
Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
01492 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Apr 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 24 Jun 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jul 02.
EDWARD C. KOENIG III
Panel Chair
Since filing his appeal, he has been promoted to the grade of SRA with a DOR of 15 Feb 01. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this appeal are contained in the applicant’s military records (Exhibit B), and the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force (Exhibits C, D and E). TEDDY L. HOUSTON Panel Chair AFBCMR 00-02866 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and...
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...
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.
The rater stated that he originally rated the applicant an overall " 5 " rating. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Associate Chief, Military Justice Division, Air Force Legal Services Agency, AFLSA/JAJM, states that the applicant does not 2 specifically seek relief with regard to the Article 15 action. - A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Chief , Evaluation Procedures Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, states that while the first...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03018 INDEX CODE: 111.02, 134.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: An expired Unfavorable Information File (UIF), with a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) be removed from her records; the line in Section V (Rater’s Comments) of her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), closing 23 Apr 99, which made the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02758
DPPPE contends, as did the ERAB, that the applicant failed to provide specific documentation to support any of his allegations as well as being unclear in his statement citing evidence of a miscommunication between two other parties. (Exhibit D) _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 8 November 2002, for review and comment within 30 days. After...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02383
As a result, the indorser changed the EPR to reflect nonconcurrence and the higher rating of “5.” He also has the commander’s signature concurring with the indorser’s decision to upgrade the report. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB also reviewed the appeal and advises that, should the Board upgrade the report as requested, the applicant would be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 01E6 and would become a selectee pending...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, also reviewed this application and indicated that while the applicant believes the ratings and comments on the EPR are inconsistent with her prior and subsequent evaluations, that does not render the report erroneous or unjust. DPPPEP does not believe that a personality conflict existed between the applicant and the rater. A complete copy of their evaluation is...
They indicated that the first time the report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 02E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective August 2002 - July 2003). The evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the evaluations and provided a response, which is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. We...
The applicant’s board score for the 99E8 board was 397.50. The applicant did provide a letter of recommendation from the commander supporting the upgrading of the EPR ratings and changes to his original comments. It is unreasonable to conclude the commander now, over 10 years later, has a better understanding of the applicant’s duty performance for that time period.