RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02048
INDEX CODE: 131.09
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be promoted to the grade of master sergeant, with an appropriate
effective date, and be provided any other remedies the Board deems
just and fair.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
A letter of explanation that was sent to the Quality Review Panel
(QRP) regarding an unfavorable Enlisted Performance Report (EPR),
which has been removed by the Air Force Board for Correction of
Military Records (AFBCMR), does not appear to have been in her record
when it was reviewed by the panel.
She believes that the availability of the letter would have mitigated
the impact that the unfavorable EPR had on the panel, making it a
critical component of her record.
She missed the promotion cut-off score by the narrow margin of one-
half (1/2) of a point. She believes that her total score would have
surpassed the cut-off score had the panel been allowed to view her
letter of explanation.
In support of her appeal, the applicant provided an expanded
statement, the letter of explanation to the QRP, and documentation
pertaining to the correction of her military records by the Board.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is currently in the Air Force Reserve as a medical
services specialist.
On 23 Apr 03, the AFBCMR considered and granted an appeal pertaining
to the applicant, directing that her EPR closing 4 Aug 99 be voided
and removed from her records; and, that she be promoted to the grade
of technical sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 1 Sep 99.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/SG recommended denial indicating that the applicant's case is
based on their inability to produce the letter at this time. Receipt
confirmation of the letter was established by the applicant and
procedures were followed which resulted in all letters sent to the QRP
being placed in the appropriate personnel files. The applicant was
deemed not qualified for reassignment to a higher graded position, as
were fourteen other members of her specialty. The destruction of all
letters after completion of review and scoring of all records was an
untimely but inconsequential error by an inexperienced staff member.
A complete copy of the ARPC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant provided a detailed response indicating that because there
was no evidence that her letter of explanation was in her records when
they were reviewed by the QRP, the information it contained had
already proven to be compelling, and because she has evidence of a
pattern of errors, she requests favorable consideration of her appeal.
Applicant's complete response, with attachment, is at 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. We note that the applicant's record
was reviewed by the QRP and she was considered not qualified for
reassignment to a higher graded position. The applicant contends that
a letter of explanation that was sent to the QRP regarding an
unfavorable EPR, which was removed by the AFBCMR, did not appear to
have been in her record when it was reviewed. ARPC/SG indicated the
applicant confirmed receipt of the letter, but that the letter was
inadvertently destroyed at the conclusion of the QRP. In view of
ARPC/SG's inability to produce the letter, we believe any doubt
concerning the impact the letter of explanation may have had on the
QRP's determination that she was not qualified for reassignment to a
her graded position should be resolved in favor of the applicant.
Notwithstanding this, we are not inclined to recommend her promotion
to the grade of master sergeant as she has requested. In our opinion,
proper and fitting relief in this case would be to have the QRP again
consider the applicant's record. However, we do not believe including
the letter of explanation in her record would now be appropriate since
it appears that the referenced EPR has been removed from her records.
Accordingly, we recommend that the applicant's records be corrected as
indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be supplementally considered by a Quality
Review Panel for her reassignment to a higher graded position; and,
that if her letter of explanation is discovered, it not be included in
her record.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-02048 in Executive Session on 26 Aug 03, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Jun 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, ARPC/SG, dated 3 Jul 03.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jul 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, applicant, dated 30 Jul 03, w/atch.
JOHN L. ROBUCK
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2003-02048
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to , be supplementally considered by a Quality Review
Panel for her reassignment to a higher graded position; and that, if
her letter of explanation is discovered, it not be included in her
record.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
Submission of the original on the indicated 30 Nov 01 date would have been in sufficient time to process the nomination even if the fax copy had been misrouted or not sent. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT to include the attached Promotion Recommendation Form, AF Form 709, signed by General Scott, be considered for promotion to the grade...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00603
The rater of the contested EPR was a colonel assigned to the HQ USAF/SGT as the IHS Program Manager. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant advises she filed MEO and IG complaints but her complaints were dismissed. MARTHA J. EVANS Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-00603 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the...
In regards to the additional PME requirement, the applicant states that the policy was not in effect at the time of her promotion board and she should not be evaluated against a higher standard than her peers meeting the same board. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, to include the attached Promotion Recommendation Form, AF Form 709, be considered...
At the completion of the course of treatment she was found fit for full duty and released from active duty back to the Air Force Reserve. No Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was initiated at this time to determine her fitness for duty and AFRES started administrative discharge action under the provisions of AFI 36-3209. Also, in September 1996, ARPC/DPAD terminated discharge action and cleared her to return to active participating status with an assignment limitation code 7 96-0 1447 of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02809
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPB recommended denial noting that the applicant filed an Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) request, which was denied. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 26 Sep 03 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2007-02503
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/JA recommends relief, and states, in part; the applicant suffered a downgraded EPR due to lack of training and lack of response from her supervisors or chain of command. The evidence of record clearly establishes that she was not being properly trained and that her chain-of-command was derelict in training her. At the request of the applicant’s counsel, the DoD/IG reexamined the documentation...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-01327
The EPR is erroneous in that it reflects an incorrect reporting period due to the fact that her last UTA with the 302nd ASTS was performed on 10 August 2003 and she did not participate with this unit for pay/points after this date, and reflects a feedback session date of 2 June 2003 that did not occur and was fabricated for reasons unknown to her. The applicant’s contentions are noted; however, the available evidence indicates that although she contends she did not participate with the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03819
The additional rater believes the applicant’s contention that the EPR in question was the result of a personality conflict based on her outstanding performance at the AFDRB. The report was also considered during cycle 05E6, but the applicant was not selected. An EPR profile from 1998 follows: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 4 Nov 98 5 (Ft. Meade) 1 Dec 99 5 (Ft. Meade) 1 Dec 00 5 (Ft. Meade) 5 Aug 01 5 (Ft. Meade) 31 Mar 02 4 (Contested EPR-Ft. Meade) 31 Mar 03 5 (AFDRB) 31 Mar 04 5...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02114
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPB recommended denial noting the applicant's admission that she met the requirements for accelerated promotion when the results of the FY01 Line and Health Professions Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board were publicly released on 29 Sep 00. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01984
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01984 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the reporting period ending 16 Nov 09 be removed from her records. At first it looked promising that her husband would transfer to McGhee-Tyson, TN, where she would be assigned as an instructor. In this...