RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02283
INDEX CODES: 107.00, 111.02
131.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 21 JUN 07
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 10 Aug 02 not be used in
the promotion process for cycle 05E6.
Her date of rank (DOR) be changed from 21 Apr 02 to 9 May 01, and her
Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD), Time in Service
(TIS) and Time in Grade (TIG) be corrected.
Her records be corrected to reflect award of the Air Force Achievement
Medal (AFAM), Second Oak Leaf Cluster (2OLC).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her EPR closing 10 Aug 02 should not have been used in the promotion
process for cycle 05E6, as this was a report she received while
serving in the Air Force Reserve.
She returned to active duty after a break in service but does not
believe her DOR and Total Active Federal Military Service Date
(TAFMSD) are correct as proper adjustments were not made to account
for her break in service. As a result, her promotion eligibility has
been affected.
Her records do not include the AFAM which was awarded to her while
serving in Korea.
In support of her appeal, the applicant provided personal statements,
extracts from her military personnel records, and other documents
associated with the matter under review.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
technical sergeant, having been promoted to that grade, with a DOR of
1 May 06. His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
17 May 93.
By letter, dated 16 Mar 06, AFPC/DPPAOR provided clarification
regarding the applicant’s TAFMSD, or TIS. AFPC/DPPAOR indicated the
applicant was given credit for all of her active duty time and that
her TAFMSD was correct (Exhibit D).
By letter, dated 21 Apr 06, AFPC/DPPAES notified the applicant that
her request regarding her DOR had been resolved administratively.
According to AFPC/DPPAES, her DOR was being adjusted to 21 Aug 01 as a
result of her mobilization for 180 days while in the Air National
Guard (ANG) in support of Operation Noble Eagle/Enduring Freedom.
However, AFPC/DPPAES advised the applicant that she could not receive
credit for the three months and nine days of active duty training
while in the ANG (Exhibit E).
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the
Air Force.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial noting that the first time the contested
report was used in the promotion process was cycle 05E6. The
applicant’s EPR weighted score was 117.00, her total score was 313.70,
and the score required for selection in her Air Force Special Code
(AFSC) was 314.88. The contested report had an overall rating of "4"
with the other two reports used in the promotion process during that
cycle having ratings of "5" and "4," respectively.
AFPC/DPPPWB indicated that in accordance with the governing
instruction, EPRs that close out within five years immediately
preceding the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD), not to exceed
10 reports, are used in the promotion process. EPRs are a record of
performance while serving in the military, whether on active duty or
in the Air Force Reserve. They are also an integral part of the
weighted factors and the Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) promotion
selection process.
In AFPC/DPPPWB’s view, the contested report is a valid document of
performance, and that the applicant was provided fair and equitable
promotion consideration in accordance with existing policy and
procedures and not selected for promotion.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit B.
AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial indicating the AFAM is awarded to members
of the United States Armed Forces and foreign military personnel,
below the rank of 0-6, after 30 Sep 81, who, while serving in any
capacity with the Air Force, distinguished themselves by meritorious
service or achievement.
According to AFPC/DPPPR, there was no evidence in the applicant’s
military records that an official decoration was submitted by her
unit, or that the AFAM had been awarded. The applicant has been
unable to provide any supporting documentation awarding her the AFAM
to substantiate her claim.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 28
Apr 06 for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office (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.
a. Concerning the applicant’s requests that her EPR closing
10 Aug 02 not be used in the promotion process for cycle 05E6, and she
be awarded the AFAM (2OLC), we agree with the opinions and
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility
(OPRs) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of substantial evidence her EPR closing 10
Aug 02 was erroneously considered in the promotion process for cycle
05E6, or that she was entitled to award of the AFAM (2OLC), the
applicant’s requests are not favorably considered.
b. Regarding the applicant’s requests that her DOR to staff
sergeant be changed from 21 Apr 02 to 9 May 01, and that her TAFMSD,
TIS and TIG be corrected, it appears that these issues have been
resolved administratively. Therefore, in the absence of evidence the
applicant’s DOR to staff sergeant of 21 Aug 01 and her TAFMSD of 17
May 93 are erroneous, or that she was not properly credited for all of
her active duty time, it appears no further action concerning these
portions of her appeal are necessary.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
2005-02283 in Executive Session on 27 Sep 06, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 12 Aug 05 and 14 Dec 05,
w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 4 Jan 06.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 18 Jan 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAOR, dated 16 Mar 06, w/atch.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPAES, dated 21 Apr 06, w/atch.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Apr 06.
MARILYN M. THOMAS
Vice Chair
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits B and C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR reviewed applicant's request and states that the letters attached to his application show that the initial paperwork submitted in November 2000 was not a final recommendation package,...
In support of his request the applicant provided documentation from the awarding authority indicating that if the EPR had been a "5" at the time it was originally rendered, he would have awarded the applicant an AFCM and subsequently upgraded the medal. Therefore, we do not believe it is necessary to recommend supplemental consideration for these cycles. ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR. Panel Chair AFBCMR 02-01144 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 97E9 to chief master sergeant (promotions effective Jan 98 - Dec 98). However, if the Board upgrades the decoration as requested, it could direct supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 98E9. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application and indicated that although no documentation has been provided showing the reason for the delay in awarding the AAM, 2OLC, and no copy of the recommendation package was provided, the decoration was processed and awarded within the time limits required. Current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36-2502, Table 2.2, Rule 5, Note 2)...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-02219
Applicant’s military personnel records reveal that, on 8 March 1997, the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserve under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (completion of active required service). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: HQ AFPC/DPPAOR states the applicant’s service dates and date of rank to the grade of E-4 are correct. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F).
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03819
The additional rater believes the applicant’s contention that the EPR in question was the result of a personality conflict based on her outstanding performance at the AFDRB. The report was also considered during cycle 05E6, but the applicant was not selected. An EPR profile from 1998 follows: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 4 Nov 98 5 (Ft. Meade) 1 Dec 99 5 (Ft. Meade) 1 Dec 00 5 (Ft. Meade) 5 Aug 01 5 (Ft. Meade) 31 Mar 02 4 (Contested EPR-Ft. Meade) 31 Mar 03 5 (AFDRB) 31 Mar 04 5...
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 | CY2002 | BC-2002-01960
Current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36-2502, Table 2.2, Rule 5, Note 2) dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close out date of the decoration must be on or before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD), and the date of the DECOR-6, must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. No evidence was presented which showed to the Board majority’s satisfaction that the decoration was placed in official channels prior to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02073
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02073 INDEX CODE: 110.03 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 Jan 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Extended Active Duty (EAD) date be changed from 25 Oct 05 to 11 Aug 05 to prevent a break in service, restore her promotion line number, and clear a debt for back pay and...
A complete copy of the advisory is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Awards and Decorations Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed the application for award of the MSM for the period of 2 Jul 97 – 3 Jul 99. It is the supervisor’s responsibility to recommend or not recommend for a decoration upon Permanent Change of Station (PCS). Applicant's Master Personnel Records.