RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02396
INDEX CODE: 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His date of rank (DOR) to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) be changed
from 1 Feb 02 to 1 Aug 01.
_________________________________________________________________
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.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of a 24 Jul 02
letter, with attachments. The applicant’s complete submission, with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals the
applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as 26
Nov 96. He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of staff
sergeant (E-5), with an effective date of rank of 1 Feb 02.
Information extracted from the applicant’s submission reveals that, on
27 Jun 01, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and notification of
nonrecommendation for promotion to the rank of E-5.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters
prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits B and
C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application be denied. DPPPWB stated
that the applicant was selected for promotion to the grade of staff
sergeant (E-5) during cycle 00E5 and received promotion sequence
number (PSN) 18895 (Promotion effective 1 Aug 01). On 27 Jun 01, the
applicant received a LOR for driving under the influence (DUI) as well
as a letter from his commander nonrecommending him for promotion to E-
5 for cycle 00E5. On 25 Mar 02, the State of Arizona dismissed the
DUI charges. DPPPWB stated that just because the applicant’s case was
dismissed does not mean he was innocent of the offense. His commander
issued the LOR and nonrecommended him for promotion because he was
DUI, with a blood alcohol level of .188%, not because he was found
guilty or convicted by trial. The applicant was selected for
promotion to E-5 during cycle 01E5, with a DOR of 1 Feb 02. The HQ
AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit B.
HQ AFPC/JA recommends the application be denied. At the time
applicant’s commander withheld his promotion, he [applicant] was the
subject of an inquiry that resulted in prosecution by civil
authorities, even though the State of Arizona decided, almost a year
later, to dismiss the charges against him. JA indicated that the
applicant’s commander acted appropriately, and in accordance with AFI
36-2502, in withholding his promotion in Jun 01. With respect to the
applicant’s contention that, since his DUI case was dismissed in Mar
02 and all charges dropped, his original DOR of 1 Aug 01 should be
restored, In JA’s opinion, the applicant has not demonstrated the
existence of a material error or injustice that warrants correction of
his records. Dismissal of the charges against the applicant involved
neither the presentation of any evidence nor any factual findings as
to the merits of those charges. Despite applicant’s statement that “I
was punished for an offense that I was found not guilty of,” JA stated
that the dismissal without prejudice in no way indicates that
applicant was innocent of the charges against him. The applicant has
failed to present relevant evidence of any error or injustice
warranting relief. The HQ AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 23
August 2002 for review and response. As of this date, no response has
been received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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 opinions and recommendations of the
respective Air Force offices and adopt the rationale expressed as the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his
burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice. In view
of the above and absent 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 in
Executive Session on 10 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
Ms. Diane Arnold, Member
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Jul 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 7 Aug 02.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 23 Aug 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Aug 02.
JOSEPH A. ROJ
Panel Chair
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...
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...
According to DPPPWB, based on the applicant’s DOR to senior airman of 15 Feb 00, the first time she will be eligible to be considered in the promotion process to staff sergeant would be cycle 01E5. The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was promoted to the grade of airman on 15 Aug 97, rather than 15 Jul 97 when she would have completed the minimum six months TIG for promotion to airman. Exhibit D. Letter, applicant, dated 22 Jan 01.
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...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01741
The applicant’s performance reports and numerous awards are provided at Exhibit B. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advises that, based on the applicant’s current and DOR of 9 Apr 03 for airman, the earliest cycle he would be eligible for promotion consideration to SSgt would be 07E5. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 03.
He further states he received a rating of “three” on his last EPR because he was not within the weight standards. The EPR closing Jun 00 indicates he continued to struggle to meet Air Force weight standards, which negatively affected his overall promotion potential and showed his failure to meet the standards over a prolonged period of time. Further, they state that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence or evaluator support to warrant upgrading the report.
_________________________________________________________________ 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. Regarding the supplemental promotion consideration, the Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch (AFPC/DPPPWB)...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02063
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: By letter, dated 5 Jul 05, the applicant provided documentation regarding verification of his possible entitlements due to the loss of his AFROTC Scholarship, which is attached at Exhibit L. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFOATS/JA indicated that according to the Base Educators Guide, dated 1 Mar 00, to be...
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...