RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02826
INDEX CODE: 111.05
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 APR 2007
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing out on 1 September 2002 be
declared void and removed from her records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The report contains a wrong Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC). She was
discriminated against because she worked in a career field dominated by
men. Her reporting official was changed twice within a two-month period in
order to coerce an officer to sign the document. The reporting official
was forced into writing the low rating by the commander, based on a request
from a chief master sergeant who planned to accuse the reporting official
of being a lesbian in order to get her discharged.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman
basic for a term of 4 years. She was progressively promoted to the grade
of master sergeant and retired in that grade after serving 18 years of
active duty service.
Her EPR profile reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
13 Nov 88 9
13 Nov 89 9
1 Sep 91 4
*1 Sep 92 3
1 Sep 93 4
* Contested report
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPP recommends changing the DAFSC but denial to voiding the EPR.
DPPP indicated the applicant failed to provide any supporting documents.
Her surrounding reports show an AFSC of 45722. The applicant states she
was in a career field that she was not trained or assigned to. It was only
assigned to her to give her a lower rating. She failed to provide proof of
this information.
According to DPPP, based on the surrounding EPRs showing a DAFSC of 45772,
the DAFSC should be changed to read “45772”. However, the DAFSC does not
invalidate the report. The incorrect DAFSC does not mean the
accomplishments on the report were not accurately documented by the
evaluators. Therefore, the report is an accurate assessment of the
member’s performance.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 Jan
06, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response
has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an error or an injustice. The applicant contends the DAFSC
was assigned to her in an effort to give her a lower rating on her EPR.
However, after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are not
persuaded that the contested report should be declared void and removed
from her records. We note the applicant has not submitted any evidence
showing the report was not an accurate assessment of her accomplishments as
rendered. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the
office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or
injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
4. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, we note that the office of
primary responsibility recommended the contested EPR be changed to reflect
a DAFSC of 45772, based on the surrounding EPRs showing a DAFSC of 45772.
We agree with the office of primary responsibility in this matter and
believe that the DAFSC on the contested EPR should be corrected.
Accordingly, we recommend that her records be corrected to the extent
indicated below.
5. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially
add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 through CMSgt), AF Form 911, rendered for the period 2
September 1991 through 1 September 1992, be, and hereby is, amended in
Section IV, DAFSC, by placing “45772” rather than “70230”.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-
02826 in Executive Session on 19 April 2006 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. Michel J. Novel, Member
Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
All members voted to correct the record, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Sep 05.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 27 Dec 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Jan 06.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2005-02826
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 XXXXXX, be corrected to show that the Senior Enlisted
Performance Report (MSgt through CMSgt), AF Form 911, rendered for the
period 2 September 1991 through 1 September 1992, be, and hereby is,
amended in Section IV, DAFSC, by placing “45772” rather than “70230”.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00313
The second was a report closing 30 September 2004, in which the Promotion Recommendation was “5” and the evaluations of his performance were all “firewall” ratings. DPPP states the applicant filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Reports. We believe any doubt in this matter should be resolved in favor of the applicant and conclude that the contested report should be removed from his records, and he should be given supplemental promotion...
Although the Article 15 was finalized after the closeout date of the EPR, the fact remains he received the Article 15 and signed for it before the report closed out. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force Evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response. CHARLENE M. BRADLEY AFBCMR 01-00364 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-00603
The rater of the contested EPR was a colonel assigned to the HQ USAF/SGT as the IHS Program Manager. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant advises she filed MEO and IG complaints but her complaints were dismissed. MARTHA J. EVANS Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-00603 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02880
In a letter dated 7 Apr 14, the applicants Primary Care Manager (PCM) stated that it was evident that the Synthroid regimen was being adjusted when the applicant failed her now one remaining FA failure on the AC measure. The complete FAAB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request for removal of her referral EPR for the period through 16 Jun 11. In this respect, we note the applicant provides a letter dated 7 Apr 14, from her PCM...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2005-02368-2
On 9 Mar 06, the Board considered and denied his request after finding that he had not provided the evidence necessary to substantiate the value of a senior rater endorsement (Exhibit F). However, his statement appears to be based primarily on his personal opinion that the applicant should have received a senior rater endorsement. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 10 July...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/Special Actions Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and states that based on the applicant’s date of rank for master sergeant, the first time the report will be considered for promotion will be cycle 02E8 to senior master sergeant (promotions effective Apr 02 - Mar 03). A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02809
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPB recommended denial noting that the applicant filed an Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) request, which was denied. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 26 Sep 03 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02715
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02715 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Force Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (MSgt thru CMSgt) rendered for the period 30 September 2009 through 29 September 2010, be amended in Section VII (Reviewers Comments), line 3, to reflect his enlisted stratification of #3 of...