RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01296
INDEX CODE: 111.05
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: MS. HALEVI
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 22 OCT 2007
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be provided supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 05E7 with an
AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report closing out on 7 August 2004,
included in her records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The 7 August 2005 referral report is inaccurate and unfairly prejudicial to
her career. She does not feel her performance over the entire year was
accurately reflected. She also believes she was denied the opportunity to
test for promotion during cycle 05E7, due to a referral report that was
never submitted.
In support of her request, the applicant provided a personal statement, AF
Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report, Referral of Enlisted Performance
Report Memorandum, a copy of the District Court of the United States
District of South Carolina XXXXXXX Division Case File and a Personal
Information Printout.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman
basic on 30 June 1992 for a term of four years. She was progressively
promoted to the grade of technical sergeant and currently serves in that
grade.
The applicant was indicted by a grand jury on two counts. Count one was
Fraud in Connection with Identification Information and count two consisted
of Fraud in Connection with Unauthorized Access Devices. On 8 August 2005,
the applicant pleaded guilty to count two of the indictment and count one
was dismissed on the motion of the United States. She was sentenced to
probation for a term of five years, placed on home confinement with
electronic monitoring for eighteen months and ordered to pay restitution in
the amount of $9,715.05.
On 31 January 2006, she received a referral EPR, closing-out on 7 August
2005. She appealed the report on the basis that the report contained
inaccuracies, specifically that she pleaded guilty to identity theft. The
Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) approved removal of the report and
she will receive supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 06E7. An
AF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation closing out on 7 August 2004, was
completed on 31 May 2006 and added to her records.
Her EPR profile reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
27 Feb 94 5
27 Feb 95 5
7 Aug 95 4
7 Aug 96 5
7 Aug 97 5
7 Aug 98 5
7 Aug 99 5
7 Aug 00 5
7 Aug 01 5
7 Aug 03 5
7 Aug 04 (LOE) No report available for
administrative reasons
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial. According to DPPP the first time the AF
Form 77 closing-out on 7 August 2004, would have been considered in the
promotion process was 05E7. However, the promotion file reflects she was
non-recommended for promotion by her commander and was therefore ineligible
IAW AFI 36-2502, Table 1.1, Rule 9.
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‘s counsel
on 16 June 2006, 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 error or injustice. The applicant originally requested the
referral EPR, closing-out on 7 August 2005 be removed from her records.
However, the ERAB has approved removal of the report and she will be
provided supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 06E7. Therefore,
the only issue before this Board is her request for supplemental promotion
consideration for cycle 05E7 with an EPR, closing-out on 7 August 2004, a
matter of record. The applicant contends she should be provided
supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 05E7 because she was denied
an opportunity to test for promotion based on a referral report which she
never received. However, after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record
and the evidence submitted by the applicant, we are not persuaded she has
established an error or an injustice in her records. In this respect, we
note that during the period in question, the applicant was convicted of a
serious offense, i.e., Fraud in Connection with Unauthorized Access
Devices, and was not recommended for promotion during cycle 05E7 by her
commander. As such, she was ineligible to test for promotion during cycle
05E7. Her records contain an AF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation (LOE),
rendered for the period 8 August 2003 through 7 August 2004, documenting
that she was not rated for the above period and that no report was
available for administrative reasons. Other than her own assertions, she
provides no evidence the LOE is in error or unjust. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought.
4. 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 DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of an 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-2006-
01296 in Executive Session on 2 August 2006 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Apr 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 5 Jun 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Jun 2006.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03011
The rater provides a statement recommending the contested EPR be deleted as it was unjust and did not fit the applicant’s true performance. On 8 Nov 05, the applicant filed a second appeal, requesting the 3 Jun 04 report be deleted because of an unjust rating resulting from a “personnel [sic] conflict with the rater.” The ERAB returned the appeal without action, suggesting the applicant provide a reaccomplished EPR. A complete copy of the HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-04401
As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F). After a thorough review of the available evidence, including the Board’s favorable consideration of two virtually identical appeals by individuals involved in the same incident for which the applicant received an Article 15, we believe sufficient doubt has been raised regarding the fairness and equity of the imposed punishment. Furthermore, since it appears the applicant’s referral EPR closing 17 Mar 06, which...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01229
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states he provided a constructed cause in effect document for consideration to breakdown much of what took place leading up to, and during, the period in question. After reviewing the documentation provided by the applicant and the evidence of record, the Board finds no persuasive evidence showing that the applicant was...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03655
His career suffered due to having to appeal for 352 days to get an enlisted performance report (EPR) removed from his records by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB). The applicant’s supplemental promotion score was 320.07. CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2006-03655 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation,...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00554
AFPC/DPSIM recommended the fitness assessment dated 22 February 2011 be removed. Should the Board deem the fitness assessments date 1 June 2011 and 31 August 2011 invalid and direct the EPR be changed from a referral to a non-referral, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 12E6, once tested. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01959
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPWB states that should the AFBCMR grant his request, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 01E6. Applicant’s contention that Family Advocacy assumed he had argued with his wife in front of the children at home, but did not have evidence to substantiate the allegation and therefore, it is unjust, they state,...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00756
The board should still consider whether the Control Roster which was issued not only for the contested FA failure, but also for two additional FA failures should be removed. HQ AFPC/DPSIDE administratively corrected the applicants EPR (by voiding the report) for the period 12 Aug 08 through 11 Apr 10, and replacing it with an AF Form 77 stating not rated for the time period, report was removed by order of Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Additionally, this action resulted in the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01818
DPF states her case file shows no evidence the applicant was directed to weigh-in regardless of her menstrual cycle prior to 10 February 2003; therefore, they recommend denial of her request to upgrade her EPR closing 25 January 2003. Accordingly, it is recommended the record should be corrected as indicated below. Exhibit H. Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 8 Nov 05.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00365
Her referral 4 EPR was rendered as a result of the contested FA failures and should therefore also be removed from her records. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 20 May 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). The applicant contends that because she had a medical condition that unfairly precluded her from attaining passing fitness...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01543
His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 30 Jan 03, be removed from his records. We note that regardless of his commander's action, the court-martial conviction and referral EPR rendered him ineligible for promotion. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the close-out date of his AF Form 910, Enlisted...