RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02410
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 29 Jan 07
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant during promotion
cycle 02E8 with a date of rank and effective date of 1 Sep 02.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
During his assignment at the Salt Lake City Military Entrance Processing
Station (MEPS) he was treated with constant disdain and reprised against by
his immediate commander. The reprisal was confirmed by the DoD Inspector
General (IG).
In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement,
documentation associated with his IG complaint, documentation associated
with his Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) appeal, Weighted Airman
Promotion System (WAPS) score notices, and copies of his voided Enlisted
Performance Reports (EPRs). His complete submission, with attachments, is
at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 25
Sep 84. He was progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jun 97.
He was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of senior
master sergeant during the 99E8 through 02E8 promotion cycles. He was
originally ineligible for cycles 03E8 because of the referral EPR and was
erroneously identified as ineligible during promotion cycle 04E8. He has
been supplementally considered and not selected for promotion to senior
master sergeant for the 02E8 through 04E8 promotion cycles.
On 1 Jun 04, the DoD IG completed an investigation into reprisal
allegations made by the applicant and determined he was denied a Senior
Rater's Deputy endorsement on his EPR closing 2 Aug 01 and was issued a
referral EPR closing 7 Apr 02 in reprisal for his protected communications
to an IG and the MEPS Commander. As a result of these findings the ERAB
voided all EPRS applicant received during his tour at MEPS, which ended in
September 2003.
On 1 Nov 04, applicant voluntarily retired from the Air Force in the grade
of master sergeant, having served 20 years, 1 month, and 6 days on active
duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of his request for direct promotion and
recommends he be allowed to retake the USAF Supervisory Exam and be
reconsidered supplementally for cycles 02E8 through 04E8. If the Board
believes an injustice exists and recommends direct promotion, DPPPWB
recommends he be promoted effective 1 Aug 03 based on their belief that he
would have been most competitive for promotion during the 03E8 cycle.
AFPC/JA recommends approval. JA states the because of the circumstances
surrounding the removal of applicant's EPRs he was denied fair
consideration for promotion and under the unique circumstances of this
case, direct promotion is warranted.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations ere forwarded to the applicant on 7 Oct
05 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has
received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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. After reviewing the evidence of record we
believe that the circumstances of this case justifies applicant's direct
promotion through the correction of records process. In this regard, the
DoD IG has found that the applicant was the victim of reprisal and based on
this determination he received four unjust EPRs. The EPRs in question have
been removed from his records. Therefore, the only question before this
Board is whether or not the applicant can receive fair consideration for
promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant through the supplemental
process. Based on the advisory opinions provided it is apparent that he
cannot receive fair and equitable consideration for promotion. In the
advisory opinion prepared by the Senior Attorney-Advisor, they conclude
that he was denied fair consideration and recommend under the unique
circumstances of this case that he receive direct promotion to senior
master sergeant. The Enlisted Promotion Branch believes that his best
chance for promotion would have been during the 03E8 promotion cycle.
After reviewing his previous promotion scores and to remove any doubt
concerning this issue, we believe that he should be promoted by the 02E8
promotion cycle. Therefore, we recommend his 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 corrected to show that on 1 September 2002, he was promoted
to the grade of senior master sergeant, and on 1 November 2004, he was
retired in the grade of senior master sergeant.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-
02410 in Executive Session on 13 Oct 05, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member
Ms. Rita S. Looney, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Jul 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 23 Sep 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 7 Oct 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Oct 05.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2005-02410
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 on 1 September 2002, he
was promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant, and on 1 November
2004, he was retired in the grade of senior master sergeant.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03331
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03331 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 30 June 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt) for promotion cycles 03E8 and 04E8. DPPPWB...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02631
Although the UMD applicant provided reflects that a staff sergeant position existed, it does not justify placing a master sergeant 7-level against that position. In support of his request, he submits Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) reflecting his DAFSC as 8J000, statements from the squadron commander and command chief master sergeant, Unit Manning Documents (UMDs), and a WAPS promotion testing notification for cycle 02E8 listing his AFSC as 8J000. ...
DPPPA indicated that the second DoD/IG complaint in May 97, contending further reprisal alleging that his command denied him an MSM, downgraded his 14 Jun 97 EPR, and assigned him to an inappropriate position, for the protected communication to the IG and wing safety officials, did not substantiate the applicant was the victim of continued reprisal. With regard to applicant’s request for promotion, JA agrees with HQ AFPC/DPPPWB’s assessments that should the Board void or modify either of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2006-01516
She believes if the awards were included in her EPR, her board score would have been higher and she subsequently would have been promoted to senior master sergeant during the 04E8 cycle. She believes the advisor inaccurately states she was considered for promotion three times after her EPR became a matter of record. It is further recommended that she be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) for promotion cycle 04E8.
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...
He does not believe that the voiding and removal of the 1996 EPR can have any “positive effect.” The DMSM (1OLC) he received was the result of corrective action taken after the DTRA IG recommended he receive an appropriate end of tour award. First, he received the DMSM for his assignment ending in 1996 as corrective action in 1999. The applicant’s DMSM could not be considered by the 97E8 promotion board because it was not in his records.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03428
He requested a new retirement date of 1 Jul 03. First, he states that the cause of the “glitch” is blamed on his retirement date cancellation not making it through the system in time, when the fact is, regardless of whether he cancelled his retirement date, he was under Stop Loss and was eligible to compete for promotion, so his retirement flowing through the system should not have mattered. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03377
In support of her request, applicant provided documentation associated with the investigation into the allegations against her, documentation associated with her administrative demotion action, and documentation associated with her referral EPR. The IG analysis concluded the preponderance of evidence supported the conclusion the adverse administrative actions taken against her were based solely on the evidence supporting the action and not because protected disc1osures had been made to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2003-02688
The first time the contested report was used in the promotion process was cycle 02E8; therefore, should the AFBCMR removed the contested report, it could direct his supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 02E8. The reviewer of the report has provided a statement indicating that in retrospect an overall promotion recommendation of “4” is more appropriate; however, retrospective views should not be used as the basis to change the original assessment by evaluators at the time...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05342
The Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) directed that his EPR closing 29 Jun 06 be replaced; however, he should have been provided supplemental promotion consideration for promotion cycles 07E8 and 08E8. Regarding the applicants contention his EPR covering the period 1 Apr 05 through 30 Sep 06, which is only a matter of record because he requested that it replace another report, was in error because it was not signed by his additional rater at the time in violation of AFI 36-2406, the...