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.
The applicant’s initial request for correction of her Enlisted
Performance Report (EPR), closing 14 May 2000, was considered and
approved by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) in July 2005.
Hence, no Board action is required on this portion of the applicant’s
appeal.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
In November 2004, she became aware of an error regarding her time-in-
grade eligibility on her 14 May 2000 EPR. The errors in the 14 May
2000 EPR seriously jeopardized her promotion to E-9, sending an
erroneous message to the selection board. The ERAB corrected the
existing EPR by replacing it with a corrected EPR, but supplemental
promotion consideration was unfavorable. She has served honorably for
27 years and has maintained a stellar record. She has performed in an
E-9 slot for more than a year with proven abilities.
In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal statement,
copies of EPRs and decorations, her 1 February 2005 ERAB appeal and 28
March 2005 ERAB decision and e-mail traffic. The applicant’s complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)
reveals the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date
(TAFMSD) as 22 May 1978. She is currently serving on active duty in
grade of senior master sergeant (E-8), with an effective date and date
of rank of 1 February 1999.
Information extracted from applicant’s submission reveals a similar
EPR appeal by the applicant, under Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-
2401, was considered and denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board
(ERAB) on 28 March 2005.
On 1 June 2005, the applicant submitted a similar EPR appeal, under
Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603 (AFBCMR). Her appeal was
forwarded to the ERAB for review prior to AFBCMR consideration. On 5
July 2005, the ERAB approved the applicant’s request for correction of
her EPR, closing 14 May 2000; however, supplemental promotion
consideration was disapproved.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application for supplemental promotion
consideration be denied. DPPPWB states that a review of the
applicant’s record reveals she was considered and nonselected for
promotion to E-9 four times (01-04). However, based on her date of
rank (DOR) to E-8, she should have been considered during cycle 00E9.
The promotion system reflects she tested for that cycle, but AFPC
turned her record off (presumably due to the EPR being marked as TIG
ineligible). DPPPWB indicates that a member will not normally be
granted supplemental consideration if the error or omission appeared
on his/her Data Verification Record (DVR) or in the Unit Personnel
Record Group (UPRG) and the individual did not take the appropriate
corrective or follow-up action before the original board convened.
The applicant did not discover the error to her EPR until November
2004 or pursue a change through the ERAB until 1 February 2005, after
the board convened for the 00E9 cycle (23 October 2000). The HQ
AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that, due to
the July 2005 decision to amend her 14 May 2000 EPR, she requests a
favorable decision to allow her to competitively compete for E-9 with
her corrected records. The applicant’s complete submission is at
Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
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 took notice of applicant’s
complete submission in judging the merits of the case and believe she
has been the victim of an injustice. Although the ERAB corrected the
EPR under review, they did not approve supplemental promotion
consideration. After reviewing the applicant’s submission and the
evidence of record, we note the revised EPR now contains a strong
indorsement by the final evaluator. In our opinion, the missing
indorsement was a substantial error and the applicant should be
considered for promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant (E-9)
by a supplemental promotion board, with her corrected record.
Accordingly, in an effort to remove any possibility of an injustice to
the applicant, we recommend the applicant be afforded supplemental
promotion consideration for all appropriate cycles beginning with
cycle 00E9, with inclusion of the EPR closing 14 May 2000.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Senior Enlisted
Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt), AF Form 911, rendered for the
period 15 May 1999 through 14 May 2000, was signed by the indorser in
Section VII, on 14 May 2000, rather than 15 February 2005.
She be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade
of chief master sergeant for all appropriate cycles, beginning with
cycle 00E9, with inclusion of her corrected Senior Enlisted
Performance Report closing 14 May 2000.
If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and
unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would
have rendered the applicant ineligible for the promotion, such
information will be documented and presented to the board for a
final determination on the individual's qualification for the
promotion.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 20 September 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered in connection with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-01787.
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 15 Jul 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 05.
Exhibit E. Letter from Applicant, dated 11 Aug 05.
B. J. WHITE-OLSON
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2005-01787
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 APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Senior
Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt), AF Form 911, rendered
for the period 15 May 1999 through 14 May 2000, was signed by the
indorser in Section VII, on 14 May 2000, rather than 15 February
2005.
She be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to
the grade of chief master sergeant for all appropriate cycles,
beginning with cycle 00E9, with inclusion of her corrected Senior
Enlisted Performance Report closing 14 May 2000.
If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to
the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered the
applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented
and presented to the board for a final determination on the individual's
qualification for the promotion.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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 | CY2007 | BC-2006-03969
In support of her request, the applicant submitted copies of an excerpt of AFI 36-2406; AFPC/DPMM memorandum dated 11 April 2006; Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) letter dated 16 December 2005; two Air Force Review Boards Agency (AFRBA) letters dated 16 December 2005; Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) Decision; proposed EPR closing 14 January 2005; contested EPR closing 14 January 2005; Meritorious Service Medal documents; and EPR closing 14 January 2006 and...
The applicant filed a similar appeal under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied. Without clear-cut explanation or evidence, we do not believe the contested report is not accurate as written, and do not support his request to correct EPR. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01161
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Applicant states that no documented evidence exists that his performance had been anything less than exceptional. With the exception of the contested EPR closing 25 January 2000, applicant’s performance report from 1992 reflect an overall rating of “5”. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed this application and indicates that...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, advises that supplemental promotion consideration is normally not granted if the error or omission appeared on a member’s Data Verification Record (DVR) or in the Unit Personnel Record Group (UPRG) and the individual did not take the appropriate corrective or follow-up action before the original promotion board convened. The Board majority cannot...
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.
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...
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. On 30 Sep 99, applicant’s supervisor did not recommend her for reenlistment due to the referral EPR. A complete copy of the their evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a five-page letter responding to the advisory opinions.
Except for the contested report and a 2 Dec 91 EPR having an overall rating of “4,” all of the applicant’s performance reports since Dec 90 have had overall ratings of “5.” Since the Article 15’s suspended reduction expired on 12 Aug 96, prior to the 31 Dec 96 Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for promotion cycle 97E6, the Article 15 did not affect the applicant’s eligibility for promotion consideration to technical sergeant for that cycle. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01921
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void his EPR closing 26 Oct 99. The applicant stated in his appeal to the ERAB that the policy on reviewing EPRs required General R____ to perform a quality check. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded to the...