RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03617
INDEX CODE: 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 2 JUN 07
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be allowed to return to the Keesler Noncommissioned Officer Academy
(NCOA) and be considered for supplemental promotion to the grade of master
sergeant (MSgt) for cycle 02E7.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was academically released from Keesler NCOA on 4 April 2001, and was
not given an opportunity to return. As a result, she was moved into a
nonfunded position not equal to her rank and experience, and subsequently
she was given a performance report not equal to her previous performance
reports while assigned to the 22nd Communications Squadron, McConnell Air
Force Base, Kansas.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 30 November 1982, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force and
continued to reenlist contracting her last enlistment on 30 September 1997,
in the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) for a period of five years. She was
promoted to technical sergeant (TSgt) effective and with a date of rank
(DOR) of 1 January 2000.
On 4 April 2001, the applicant was notified by her commander of her
academic release from the NCOA and of the convening of an Academic Review
Board. The commander indicated her cumulative average was 64 percent.
This was below the 70 percent cumulative score required for graduation.
The commander advised the applicant of her right to present information to
the board, to submit a written package; or waive the above rights.
On 12 April 2001, the applicant appealed the academic release from NCOA.
She indicated her appeal was based on the failure of the academic staff
inadequately conveying the curriculum, the flawed test, the method of
teaching used for only her flight (watching movies) and the lack of support
from her instructor.
On 30 April 2001, the applicant’s appeal was denied. The commander
indicated he was confident that the NCOA fulfilled its responsibilities in
conducting the instructional program and provided the applicant with the
appropriate assistance and counseling necessary to ensure her success. He
further advised the applicant to review the course work in her possession
and prepare for her return to an NCOA.
Based on the applicant’s DOR to TSgt, the first time she was considered for
promotion to MSgt was cycle 02E7. Her total score was 285.37 and the score
required for selection in her AFSC was 323.04. Her weighted scores were as
follows: PFE - 40.0, SKT - 37.37, TIS - 40.00, TIG - 21.00, Dec - 12.00,
and EPR 135.00. Performance reports used during this cycle covered the
period January 1997 through December 2001.
EPR profile since 1996 reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
25 Jun 96 5
25 Jun 97 5
25 Jun 98 5
25 Jun 99 5
25 Jun 00 5
2 May 01 5
2 May 02 4
On 30 November 2002, the applicant retired in the grade of technical
sergeant under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 - Sufficient Service for
Retirement. She served 20 years and 1 day of total active duty service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAT recommended denial indicating the applicant was academically
released from the Keesler NCOA on 4 April 2001. The applicant’s appeal of
academic release was denied by the College for Enlisted Professional
Military Education (CEPME) commander. The applicant submitted a timely
request.
This office is responsible for determining if Air Force members have
completed Professional Military Education (PME) and formal in-service
training courses. The applicant was academically released from the NCOA
and the CEPME commander denied the appeal. The applicant was eligible to
return to the NCOA in October 2001. The commander encouraged the applicant
to review course material and prepare for return to an NCOA. A point of
contact (POC) for questions and further information was given to the
applicant. Per AFI 36-2301, PME is for active duty, ARC and ANG personnel,
not retirees. Per AFI 36-2502, there is no requirement to complete NCOA
before being selected for promotion to MSgt. The applicant is retired from
active duty and is no longer eligible to attend NCOA.
The evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPWB recommended denial indicating TSgts who have not completed NCOA
are eligible to compete/test for MSgt; however, if selected, their
promotion will be placed in withhold until PME requirements have been met.
There are no weighted points associated with PME.
The applicant mentions that she received a lower performance rating as a
result of her release from the NCOA. Her EPR score for cycle 02E7 was
135.00 (the highest score possible). She did received an overall rating of
“4” on the report covering the period 3 May 2001 through 2 May 2002;
however, this report was never used in the promotion process prior to the
applicant retiring 30 November 2002.
There were no errors in her consideration and nonselection for promotion to
MSgt as completion of the NCOA is not a requirement to compete/test, and
the contested report was not used in the promotion process.
The evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 3 February 2006, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to
the applicant for review and response 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 is timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of an error or injustice. The applicant’s contentions are duly
noted; however, after reviewing the evidence of record, we are not
persuaded the applicant should be considered for supplemental promotion to
the grade of MSgt for cycle 02E7, nor should she be allowed to return to
the Keesler NCOA. We note the applicant was academically released from
Keesler NCOA on 4 April 2001. She was advised by her commander to review
course material and prepare for return to an NCOA. However, prior to her
retirement date she apparently did not do so. During the 02E7 promotion
cycle her total score was 285.37 and the score required for selection in
her AFSC was 323.04. Per AFI 36-2502, there is no requirement to complete
NCOA before being selected for promotion to MSgt. The applicant does not
provide persuasive evidence that there was an error in her consideration
and nonselection for promotion to MSgt. As noted by the Air Force,
completion of the NCOA is not a requirement to compete. Further, the EPR
closing 2 May 2002 was not used in the promotion process prior to the
applicant’s retirement. In regard to the applicant returning to the
Keesler NCOA, IAW AFI 36-2301, PME is for active duty, ARC and ANG
personnel, not retirees. Therefore, in view of the above, and in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the
existence of an error or an injustice; the application was denied without a
personal appearance; and 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 this application in Executive
Session on 7 March 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
Ms. Kathleen B. O’Sullivan, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-03617 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Nov 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 29 Dec 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 23 Jan 06, w/atch.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Feb 06.
JAMES W. RUSSELL III
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02531
On 31 July 2007, the applicant retired in the grade of TSgt after serving 20 years and 6 months on active duty, _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. Furthermore, had the request for a waiver been approved, which would have been no more than a deferment requiring completion of PME within 179 days of pin-on, she would also have had to serve a two-year active duty service commitment in order to retire in that...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02215
Her promotion test to staff sergeant (SSgt) for cycle 88A5 be scored and credited for promotion. DPPPWB finds no error or injustice occurred when the applicant was required to retest after it was discovered that she took the wrong test. ________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03148
ARPC notified her that she was not qualified because she had mistakenly been enrolled in and completed the Senior Non-Commissioned Officer Academy (SNCOA) course instead of the required NCOA and was referred to the ARPC Promotions Section. The confusion concerning promotion with completion of SNCOA is based on an exception listed in Table 4.2, Note 8, which states: “Do not promote an enlisted member to MSgt unless they complete NCOA. After completing the course, she was told more than once...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-04010
He would have been promoted; however, the referral EPR was not removed from his record until after he retired. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00838
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB states that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the closeout date of the decoration must be on or before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD). A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 11 July 2003, for...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02258
Exceptions to this policy are only considered when the airman can support a previous submission with documentation or statements including conclusive evidence that the recommendation was officially placed into military channels within the prescribed time limits and conclusive evidence that the decoration was not acted upon due to loss or inadvertence. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02847
According to emails provided by the applicant (Exhibit A), on 20 Mar 02 his squadron section requested a test date for him as he had not been identified on the promotion eligibility roster. A test date was obtained for him and, although he did not test in the regular window, his test score was considered for that testing cycle. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02286 COUNSEL: MAJ THOMAS L. FARMER HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive a direct promotion to master sergeant with an effective date of promotion and a date of rank as a promotee in the SDI 8J000, Correctional Custody career field for 1998 or 1999. The applicant believes that two of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04618
The applicant has not provided any evidence within her appeal that this report did in fact not make it into her promotion selection record in time for the promotion evaluation board. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 March 2012 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). We took notice of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01974
Further, it was improper for the rater to document the alleged misconduct since he was not the applicant’s supervisor during the period it occurred and also did not have 60 days of supervision as required for referral reports. An annual report was rendered on 30 Jan 02, as required, and the LOR was documented in the EPR by the rater in the new unit (causing the report to be referred). Applicant’s counsel states “unfavorable information should perhaps not been included in any report …”...