RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

      IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01516
            INDEX CODE: 111.02
      XXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  NONE

                                  HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  19 NOV 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The board substitute her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 3 Feb  03
and grant her  supplemental  promotion  consideration  for  promotion  cycle
04E8.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her rater failed to include  a  wing-level  Communications  and  Information
(C&I) award and a squadron-level quarterly award in  her  EPR.   She  didn’t
realize the quarterly award was omitted until the  C&I  award  omission  was
discovered.  In addition, she was not notified of her selection as  the  C&I
award winner until Jan 04 and therefore, did not  have  the  opportunity  to
request a correction prior to the 04E8 promotion  board.   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.

In  support  of  the  application,  the  applicant  submits  copies  of  the
contested  and  replacement  EPR,  a  memorandum  from  her  former   Flight
Commander, an e-mail from the Deputy Flight  Commander,  a  memorandum  from
the 18th Wing Command  Chief  Master  Sergeant,  a  personal  statement,  an
excerpt from AFI 2502 and the Chief Master  Sergeant  (CMSgt)/Senior  Master
Sergeant Promotion (SMSgt) Program Fact Sheet.

Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted  from  the  personnel  data  system  reflects  the  applicant
contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  28  Sep  87.
She was considered but not selected for  promotion  to  SMSgt  in  the  04E8
cycle.  The following cycle, 05E8 she was  selected  for  promotion  to  the
grade of SMSgt and has assumed that grade effective and with a date of  rank
of 1 Oct 05.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

APFC/DPPEP recommends denial.   AFPC/DPPEP states the applicant  had  ample
time to initiate  the  appeals  process.   DPPEP  does  not  find  specific
evidence the contested report is flawed or unjust. The  supporters  of  the
applicants appeal do not explain how they were hindered  from  rendering  a
fair and accurate assessment of her performance prior to the  report  being
made a matter of record.  The appeals process does not  exist  to  recreate
history or enhance chances for  promotion.   As  a  result,  DPPEP  is  not
convinced the contested report is not accurate  as  written  and  does  not
support the request for removal and replacement.

The complete DPPEP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPWB defers to the recommendation  of  AFPC/DPPPEP.   DPPPWB  states
supplemental promotion consideration is granted on a case-by-case basis.  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 pursue a change to this  EPR  through  the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) until 8 Feb 06, well after the board
convened for the 04E8 cycle (26 Jan 04).  The request  was  denied  by  the
ERAB on 22 Mar 06.  The first time  the  contested  EPR  was  used  in  the
promotion process was cycle  04E8.   Her  board  score  was  390.00,  total
promotion score was 651.33, and the score required  for  selection  in  her
AFSC was 651.58.

The complete DPPPWB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states she did not discover until  the  summer  of  2004  that  a
second appeal to include the omitted awards was authorized.   She  believes
the advisor neglects to explain that in order to  initiate  an  appeal  you
must have the original signatures of the rater, additional  rater  and  the
reviewing official on the corrected EPR.   Considering  her  rater  made  a
permanent change of station to another location and  her  additional  rater
had retired, she believes 39 days was unrealistic to believe  this  process
could have been completed before the board met.  After learning  she  could
appeal the EPR, she worked diligently to get the package completed and  has
email correspondence to support her efforts.  She further  notes,  AFI  36-
2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems affords members  three  years
from the date an error is discovered to appeal  an  EPR.   Her  appeal  was
submitted well within the three year time frame.  She believes the  advisor
inaccurately states she was considered for promotion three times after  her
EPR became a matter of record.  She  was  only  considered  twice  and  was
selected for SMSgt the second time during the 05E8  promotion  cycle.   She
also provides evidence that she was not informed of the (C&I)  award  until
Jan 04 making it impossible to correct her EPR ending 4 Feb  03  before  it
became a matter of record.  The advisor also indicates her  supporters  did
not explain how they were hindered  from  rendering  a  fair  and  accurate
assessment of her performance; however, she provided a memorandum from  the
Test Director stating during the announcement of her winning the C&I award,
she was deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and  they  failed
to sufficiently recognize her and failed to include the award in  her  EPR.
She states awards are used to evaluate the “whole  person”  concept  during
the promotion selection  boards  according  to  the  CMSgt/SMSgt  Promotion
Program fact sheet, dated 1 Aug 05.  The AFI states you can file an  appeal
to correct or remove an EPR from your records if you believe it’s incorrect
or unjust.  She believes her EPR closing out 4 Feb 03 is incorrect  because
it does not accurately reflect her performance during the reporting  period
and should therefore be corrected.

Her complete response 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 an error or injustice warranting corrective  action.   Aplicant
requests her EPR closing 3 Feb 03 be  replaced  with  a  corrective  report.
She contends her raters omitted comments in her report  which  she  believes
were significant enough to have increased her promotion  board  score.   The
Air Force recommends her request  be  denied  contending  the  applicant  is
attempting to recreate history and that she failed to initiate  the  appeals
process prior  to  the  convening  of  the  selection  board.   However,  to
contrary, it appears the applicant realized the  information  pertaining  to
her selection as winner  of  the  awards  prior  to  the  convening  of  the
selection board and made every reasonable attempt to request  correction  of
her EPR, but because of  circumstances  outside  of  her  control,  she  was
unable to do so.  Accordingly, we  believe  the  applicant  has  established
reasonable doubt as to whether or not an injustice  exists  and  it  is  our
opinion that any doubt in this matter should be resolved in her  favor.   We
are unable to ascertain whether or not the information regarding her  awards
is significant enough to warrant her  selection  for  promotion  during  the
04E8 cycle and we believe that determination should be placed in  the  hands
of duly appointed promotion board members.  Therefore,  it  is  our  opinion
that her records should be corrected to the extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be be corrected to show that her  Senior  Enlisted  Performance
Report (EPR), AF Form 911, rendered for the period 5 February  2002  through
4 February 2003, be  declared  void  and  replaced  with  the  attached  EPR
reflecting in Section  VII,  Reviewer's  Comments,  first  sentence,  "Pace-
setting! 99 ABW Comm & Info Award Winner '02 ..stellar performance  set  her
apart from peers."

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.

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  individual
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.

If  supplemental  promotion  consideration  results  in  the  selection  for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the  records
shall be corrected to show that she was promoted to the higher grade on  the
date of rank established by the  supplemental  promotion  and  that  she  is
entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits  of  such  grade  as  of  that
date.
________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 26 Jul 06 and 18 Aug 06, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
      Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Apr 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 7 Jun 06.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 8 Jun 06.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jun 06.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Jul 06, w/atchs.




                                                   JAY H. JORDAN
                                                   Panel Chair