RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02594
INDEX CODE: 131.05
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES
__________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be promoted to chief master sergeant (CMSgt) (E-9) during the 02E9
promotion cycle and retained on active duty. If promoted, 60 days of his
leave be reinstated and he be assigned to Kadena Air Base, Japan.
If his requests above are denied, he requests that his records be
considered for supplemental promotion to CMSgt for promotion cycle 02E9,
his 8 September 2003 promotion test be thrown out, he be given 60 days’
study time, and he be re-tested for the 03E9 supplemental board.
__________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The 02E9 Supplemental Promotion Board wrongfully used his Enlisted
Performance Report (EPR), closing 8 September 2002, when considering him
for promotion. This error did not allow him a fair or equal opportunity
to compete for promotion with his peers. Additionally, he was wrongfully
tested during promotion cycle 03E9 because he was ineligible for promotion
at that time.
He originally requested a retirement date of 31 August 2002, which made
him ineligible for promotion for the 02E9 promotion cycle. His retirement
was cancelled due to the implementation of the September 2001 Stop Loss.
He withdrew his request for retirement before the 31 July 2002 promotion
cut off date, allowing his promotion eligibility for the 02E9 promotion
test cycle to be reinstated. However, his promotion eligibility was not
reinstated until April 2003; therefore, his records were considered by the
02E9 Supplemental Promotion Board. Prior to his records meeting the
board, he attempted to get discrepancies in his records corrected. All
corrections were made prior to the board with the exception of his EPR
closing 8 September 2002. The close out date for any records/documents
that could be used/considered for the 02E9 board was 31 July 2002. He was
surprised when the board did not select him for promotion so he inquired
and confirmed that the board had looked at the 8 September 2002 EPR;
therefore, not allowing him a fair and equal opportunity to compete with
his peers.
He requested retirement again, which was approved for 31 August 2003.
Stop Loss also effected his 2003 retirement. He withdrew his retirement
prior to the 31 July 2003 promotion cut off date so he could test for the
03E9 promotion cycle. AFI 36-2605 states that members who become newly
eligible for promotion must receive at least 60 days study time to study
reference material prior to testing. The Air Force revised the Promotion
Fitness Evaluation (PFE) manual for the 03E9 promotion cycle; therefore
making the previous 02E9 PFE obsolete and his prior study time useless.
The promotion testing section notified him that he would test for the 03E9
test cycle on 8 September 2003 and since he had just tested for the 02E9
cycle on 24 June 2003, he would not get any further study time for the
03E9 promotion cycle. The chief of testing also told him that the 8
September 2003 date for testing was his only opportunity to test for the
03E9 testing cycle and if he did not accept it he would be shown as
declining his opportunity to test for that cycle. However, he did not
become eligible to test until 8 October 2003. He was made to test for the
03E9 test cycle even though he was ineligible to test for that promotion
cycle and he did not get his required 60 days of study time.
He truly believes he would have been promoted during the 02E9 promotion
cycle and retained on active duty. Had he been promoted during either of
the 02E9 or 03E9 promotion cycles, he would not have wasted his 116 days
terminal leave and would have never requested retirement. In addition, if
he hadn’t been wrongfully placed on Stop Loss during March 2003, he would
not have been forced to waste his leave that he had saved for terminal
leave.
In support of his application, the applicant provides personal statements;
an excerpt from AFI 36-2605; electronic and computer-generated
communications concerning his promotion eligibility and testing; and
copies of his EPRs closing 8 September 2001 and 8 September 2002. The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A (two -
DD Forms 149 with attachments).
__________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 25 March 1977, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the
age of 19 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of four years.
He was progressively promoted to the rank of Senior Master Sergeant
effective and with a date of rank of 1 August 1999.
The applicant was non-selected for promotion by the 02E9 Supplemental
Evaluation Selection Board and the 03E9 Central Evaluation Board.
On 1 August 2004, the applicant was notified that the Evaluation Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB) approved voiding his 8 September 2002 EPR; however,
they disapproved his request for supplemental promotion consideration for
the 03E9 Central Evaluation Board because the corrective action was not
initiated prior to the original central evaluation board.
On 4 October 2004, the applicant was notified by AFPC/DPPPWM, that his
records would be considered on 2 May 2005 for 03E9 supplemental promotion
consideration due to his voided EPR.
The applicant was honorably discharged from active duty effective 30
September 2004 and retired effective 1 October 2004. He served 27 years, 3
months, and 7 days on active duty.
__________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s requests. DPPPWB states
that the Chief of the Senior Non-Commissioned Officer (SNCO) Promotion
Section verified in a 16 October 2003 message to the applicant that the top
report in his record for the 02E9 Supplemental Promotion Board closed out 8
September 2001. When the applicant was notified by AFPC that his
8 September 2002 report was on top of his record, his record had already
been re-aged for the 03E9 cycle.
DPPPWB states the applicant should never have been eligible for promotion
consideration for the 03E9 promotion cycle; however, he was erroneously
tested on 8 September 2003. His total promotion score was 592.45 and the
score required for promotion in his Air Force Specialty Code was 645.42.
DPPPWB states that in reference to the applicant’s contentions concerning
lack of study time, AFI 36-2505, Air Force Military Personnel Testing
System, indicates, “Do not delay testing to give additional study time
unless members did not have access to study reference materials at least 60
days prior to test date.” It is DPPPWB’s opinion that the applicant had
sufficient access to study material prior to his test date because the new
PFE was distributed in April 2003 and available in June 2003. The PDF
format version was available through the web starting in June 2003 as well.
Additionally, when a member signs the promotion testing Report on
Individual Person, he or she is waiving the right to 60 days even if he or
she does not have the materials 60 days prior to the test date.
DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s request for supplemental
promotion consideration for cycle 02E9 since the correct EPRs were seen
during the promotion process. Additionally, they recommend denial of his
request for supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 03E9 because his
complaint is baseless. DPPPWB states the applicant was later found to be
ineligible for promotion and while he did received erroneous consideration
initially, this error should not be perpetuated by allowing him additional
erroneous promotion consideration regardless of the merits of his argument
concerning test preparation. The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.
__________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief SNCO Promotion Section did not verify anything except that she
was trying to cover up their mistake in allowing the wrong EPR to be used
during the 02E9 supplemental promotion board. AFPC is trying to find ways
to justify/cover-up the mistakes they have made concerning his promotion
opportunities during the 02E9 and 03E9 promotion cycles.
He was not promotion eligible for the 03E9 promotion cycle until 8 October
2003; therefore, he had no idea when his testing date would be. He should
have been given 60 days with study materials prior to testing for the 03E9
promotion cycle when he became eligible. AFPC confirms he was erroneously
tested on 8 September 2003. He signed an Air Force Form 1566; however, it
does not state anywhere on the form about waiving his 60 days of study
time. However, it does state that if he did not complete the form, it
constitutes refusal to test and renders him ineligible for promotion during
that promotion cycle.
He wrote every office in his chain of command trying to get someone to
correct the wrong things that happened to him in the last couple of years.
His complaints keep getting turned over to AFPC/IG for response. AFPC/IG
only sends bogus answers and never addresses his issues.
He received a letter, dated 4 October 2004, from AFPC/DPPPWM allowing him
supplemental promotion consideration for the 03E9 promotion cycle because
the ERAB approved voiding his 8 September 2002 EPR. However, they don’t
mention anything about throwing out the erroneous test he took on 8
September 2003. His records meeting the 03E9 Supplemental Promotion Board
using the 8 September 2003 erroneous test results is clearly wrong.
AFPC/DPPP has made many excuses, false and inaccurate statements in trying
to cover-up the unfair/wrongful handling of his promotion opportunities
during the 02E9 and 03E9 promotion cycles. He believes they are confused
about what they have said and wrote. The applicant’s rebuttal, with
attachments, is at Exhibit E. The applicant’s additional comments (after
receiving approval for 03E9 Supplemental Promotion Consideration), with
attachments, are at Exhibit F.
__________________________________________________________________
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. The applicant requests direct promotion
to CMSgt by the 02E9 promotion cycle, reimbursement of 60 days of leave,
and assignment to Kadena AB, Japan. He states, if his requests are
denied, he wants his records to be considered for supplemental promotion
to CMSgt for promotion cycle 02E9, his 8 September 2003 promotion test be
thrown out, he be given 60 days’ study time, and he be re-tested for the
03E9 supplemental board. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of
record, we find no evidence to show that the applicant’s records were in
error when they were considered for 02E9 supplemental promotion
consideration; therefore, his request for direct promotion to CMSgt or
additional supplemental promotion consideration for the 02E9 promotion
cycle is not warranted. Since submitting his appeal, the applicant was
notified his records would receive 03E9 supplemental promotion
consideration on 2 May 2005 because the ERAB voided his 8 September 2002
EPR. In the case of the applicant’s request for leave reimbursement, it
appears that when the applicant voluntarily pulled his retirement
paperwork, the responsible officials applied appropriate standards in
determining the usage of his use or loose leave. Other than the
applicant’s assertions, we find no evidence to show that the applicant was
not afforded the same opportunities as other members in his situation
concerning the usage of his leave. Therefore, we 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
that he has suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the
foregoing, we conclude that no basis exists to recommend granting the
relief sought in this application.
4. 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 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 17 February 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
Mr. Christopher D. Carey, Member
The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02594
was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 16 Aug 04, with attachments.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dtd 24 Aug 04, with atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Sep 04.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Rebuttal, dtd 17 Sep 04, with atchs.
Exhibit F. Applicant’s Rebuttal, dtd 6 Oct 04, with atchs.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-00215
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-03980
The DPPPWB complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 13 Feb 04, for review and comment within 30 days. Therefore, in the absence of clear-cut evidence that the applicant's record would have been scored sufficiently high to warrant his selection for promotion by the board in question, favorable action on his request for...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02755
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states he did file an IG complaint, which he included with his application. However, based on the applicant’s previous and subsequent performance reports,the performance feedback he received prior to the contested report, and the letter from the rater of the contested...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02650
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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-00215
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) Decision, dated 11 October 2002, the contested EPR closing 2 January 2002, AF Form 3070, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings, dated 17 January 2002, a letter from the additional rater of the contested report, dated 10 July 2002, and other documentation. Therefore, the Board is of the opinion that these comments should be removed from the contested report and that he be...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01305
The applicant was the number one non-select of the seven individuals considered for promotion in his AFSC. There were seven eligibles in the 1A4X0 AFSC at the time selects were run on 29 October 2002, resulting in one promotion quota. The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He feels the Air Force advisory has not addressed the issue of accountability to written Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00423
The Senior Rater (who was not an evaluator on the EPR) provided a letter of support only to agree that the reason that feedback was not accomplished is inaccurate. Furthermore, AFI 36-2406, paragraph 2.10 states “A rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session will not, of itself, invalidate any subsequent performance report.” The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPWB makes no recommendation regarding the applicant’s request, but advises that should the EPR...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02600
__________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPR recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The DPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Any action he took (like withdrawing his retirement in July 2003) would never have occurred if he were not wrongfully affected by the March 2003 Stop Loss. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01787
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01787 (Case 2) INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 7 DECEMBER 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: By amendment at Exhibit E, she requests supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of chief master sergeant (E-9), with the corrected EPR, closing 14 May 2000. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03655
His career suffered due to having to appeal for 352 days to get an enlisted performance report (EPR) removed from his records by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB). The applicant’s supplemental promotion score was 320.07. CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2006-03655 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation,...