RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02925
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 21 Mar 06
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 30 May
02 through 29 May 03 be declared void and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The contested report contained inaccurate comments.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded
statement, a copy of the contested report, and a statement from his
Area Defense Counsel (ADC).
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant’s available military personnel records indicate he enlisted
in the Regular Air Force on 6 Dec 82.
Applicant's EPR profile since 1994 follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION
27 Feb 94 5
27 Feb 95 5
27 Feb 96 5
27 Feb 97 5
24 Mar 98 5
7 Dec 98 5
7 Dec 99 5
7 Dec 00 5
29 May 01 5
29 May 02 5
* 29 May 03 2 (Referral)
* Contested report.
An Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) Report of
Investigation, dated 31 Jan 03, indicates that the applicant was the
subject of an investigation for larceny of military property, with a
total estimated loss of $17,517.00. The period of the report was from
25 Nov 02 to 31 Jan 03.
On 21 Aug 03, the applicant was convicted by general court-martial of
stealing Amazon.com Salute Our Troops gift certificates, of a value of
more than $500.00, between 19 Jul 02 and 20 Nov 02. He was sentenced
to confinement for a period of 30 days, two months of hard labor
without confinement, forfeiture of $1,000.00 per month for six months,
and reduction in grade from senior master sergeant to airman first
class. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged.
Applicant was relieved from active duty on 31 Jul 04 and retired,
effective 1 Aug 04, in the grade of airman first class. He was
credited with 21 years, 7 months, and 4 days of active service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial noting the Evaluation Reports Appeal
Board (ERAB) denied the applicant’s request based on the fact a rater
can use reliable information. According to AFPC/DPPPE, the EPR never
mentioned the applicant had actually “appropriated funds wrongfully”;
however, it did state the investigation indicated the funds were
wrongfully appropriated. There was an indication that there was an
ongoing investigation concerning the wrongful appropriation of funds,
not that it had actually happened.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response and
additional documentary evidence, to include an OSI report. He stated
the OSI report did not indicate he wrongfully appropriated any
certificates. He was eventually found guilty of wrongfully
appropriating the certificates. However, he could have easily been
found not guilty and his EPR would have a wrongful factual statement.
Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB indicated the first time the contested report would have
normally been used in the promotion process was cycle 03E9 to chief
master sergeant (CMSgt). However, the fact that the applicant
received a referral report rendered him ineligible for promotion
consideration in accordance with the governing instruction. Should
the Board remove the report as requested, the applicant would remain
ineligible for promotion consideration due to an insufficient grade.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPWB is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 25
Mar 05 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit G).
_________________________________________________________________
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's complete
submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly
noted. However, we are not persuaded that corrective action is
warranted. We are aware that evaluators are required to assess a
ratee’s performance, honestly and to the best of their ability, based
on their observance of an individual’s performance. No evidence has
been presented which would lead us to believe the applicant’s
evaluators were unable to render an accurate, unbiased evaluation of
his performance, or that the contested report was based on factors
other than the applicant’s duty performance during the contested
rating period. Furthermore, we find no evidence which shows to our
satisfaction the contested report was prepared contrary to the
governing instruction. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence
of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request that his EPR
closing 29 May 03 be voided and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-02925 in Executive Session on 8 Jun 05, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Sep 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 6 Dec 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Dec 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, applicant, dated 3 Jan 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 10 Mar 05.
Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Mar 05.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00055
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00055 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 6 April 2001 through 21 December 2001, is declared void and removed from his records. The HQ AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB states...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04036
The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was not convinced by the documentation submitted by the applicant and denied his request. DPPPE further states that Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: Upon review of the Air Force evaluations, the applicant states the EPR appeal board stated the gortex jacket and boots...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04076
In this case, the commander concluded that the applicant had assaulted his wife. Finally, although the actions taken against the applicant may have been instigated by his ex-wife’s allegations against him, the commander only took action after an investigation by the OSI substantiated misconduct on the applicant’s part. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02718
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02718 INDEX CODES: 100.05, 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 4 Mar 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: By amendment, his promotion eligibility be reinstated so his test scores for the 03E6 cycle can be graded; he receive promotion consideration for cycle 04E6; his training status code...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01717
In support of his request applicant provided, a personal statement; and documentation associated with his Article 15 punishments, his referral EPRs and appeals, and his discharge review board process. JAJM states this case presented conflicting evidence to the commander and the appellate authority at the time of the Article 15 punishment. After considering the matters raised by the applicant, the commander determined that the applicant had committed "one or more of the offenses alleged"...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03461
Other than his own assertions, there is no indication in the record before us that that the rater did not have reasonable information available concerning the applicant’s performance during the contested rating period on which to base a reasonably accurate assessment. Additionally, we note that the rater on the contested report was in the applicant’s rating chain on the preceding report which, in our view, supports the position that the rater was familiar with the applicant and was aware of...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01057
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01057 INDEX CODE: 111.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 6 OCTOBER 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 5 May 05 through 14 Feb 06 be voided and removed from his records. He contends that the commander used these three incidents for...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01104
Applicant's EPR profile since 1992 follows: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION 29 Mar 92 5 29 Mar 93 5 29 Mar 94 5 29 Mar 95 5 29 Mar 95 5 29 Mar 96 5 31 Jan 97 5 31 Jan 98 5 31 Jan 99 5 31 Jan 00 5 31 Jan 01 5 * 31 Mar 02 4 (referral) 1 Jan 03 5 * Contested report. He indicated that at the time his EPR would have closed out, the applicant was under investigation for an alleged assault incident that occurred on 25 Jan 02. The evidence of record indicates that a CDI was conducted into allegations...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03080
The applicant's EPR profile is as follows: PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 7 May 03 5 7 May 02 2 - Contested Report 4 Apr 01 5 4 Apr 00 5 4 Apr 99 5 4 Apr 98 5 4 Apr 97 4 _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial. Congress and the Secretary have designated the commander and the appeal authority the responsibility for determining the appropriateness of an otherwise lawful punishment. THOMAS S....
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01169
On 18 Mar 04, his commander, after considering the evidence and applicant’s response to the Article 15 determined he had committed the offenses alleged. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPF concurs with AFLSA/JAJM’s determination regarding the applicant’s request to remove the LOR issued to him. The applicant notes that the statements have nothing to do with the relief he is requesting from the Board.