RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02171
INDEX CODE: 111.05
COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 22 FEB 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing out on 31 January 2006, be
changed in Section V, Line 10 to reflect she completed five classes towards
her Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) Degree rather than stating
she completed her CCAF.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
During the period of the contested report she completed a total of 15
semester hours towards her CCAF.
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 on 28 May 1997 for a term of 4 years. She was progressively promoted
to the grade of staff sergeant and currently serves in that grade. The
first time the report would have been considered in the promotion process
was cycle 06E6. She was selected for promotion to the grade of technical
sergeant during the 06E6 promotion cycle.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial. According to DPPPEP the applicant failed to
provide any supporting evidence from her evaluators to support her claim.
She must provide a substitute report with the corrections made and signed
by all original evaluators. She must also provide documentation showing
she completed five classes towards her CCAF and has not been awarded a CCAF
Degree. She was provided 30 additional days to provide additional
information for the board to consider and failed to take necessary actions
to support her claim. An evaluation report is considered to represent the
rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. Once a report is
accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction
or removal from an individual’s record. The burden of proof is on the
applicant. She has not substantiated the aforementioned report was not
rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at
the time.
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 27 Oct
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 error or injustice. It appears the applicant contends the EPR
is inaccurate and should be changed to reflect she completed five classes
towards her CCAF Degree rather than stating she completed her CCAF. After
reviewing the documentation provided by the applicant and the evidence of
record, the Board finds no persuasive evidence that the report was not
rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at
the time. We also note the applicant has failed to provide a substitute
report with the corrections made signed by the original evaluators.
Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
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.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
02171 in Executive Session on 30 November 2006 under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
Ms. Leloy W. Cottrell, Member
Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Jul 06.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 16 Oct 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Oct 06.
WAYNE R. GRACIE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01716
In support of her request, the applicant provided a personal statement, copy of statement Reason for Appeal of Referral EPR, AF IMT Form 910 Enlisted Performance Report, a Rebuttal to Referral Report Memorandum, a Letter of Appreciation, AF Form IMT 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet, five Letters of Recommendation and excerpts from her military personnel records. On 3 October 2005, an unsigned copy of the referral EPR dated 30 September 2005 was presented to her. After reviewing the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01995
Instead, para 4.7.5.2 is the appropriate reference that applies to the applicant and it states, “…the LOE becomes a referral document attached to the report.” After reviewing the referral EPR, the rater did not attach the LOE to the applicant’s referral EPR, therefore, as an administrative correction, DPPPEP recommends the LOE be attached to the referral EPR with corrections made to the “From and Thru” dates. DPPPWB states the first time the contested report would normally have...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01402
AFPC/DPPPEP's 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 23 June 2006 for review and comment within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02659
The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36- 2401 and the appeal was considered and denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB). Based on the administrative nature of the changes, the only relief the ERAB would have granted the applicant would be to substitute the reports - not void the one on file. The evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 20...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00202
These were the minimum eligibility requirements to be considered by the promotion board but in no way ensured or guaranteed a promotion. DPPPEP has no way of knowing whether the promotion authority would have recommended the applicant’s promotion consideration during this cycle since the top report was a referral. In this respect, it appears the statements regarding the applicant’s supervisory performance were the basis for the contested reports.
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 | CY2005 | BC-2006-01516
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. She believes the advisor inaccurately states she was considered for promotion three times after her EPR became a matter of record. 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01862
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His rater did not provide mid-term performance feedback on 1 March 2006 as indicated on the report, nor was verbal feedback provided from the endorsers. We note the applicant’s assertion that his chain of command did not provide written or verbal performance feedback; however, we also note the comments provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility that although Air Force policy does...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02840
The commander stated he contacted her former commander to determine the specifics of her decoration and fully supports supplemental promotion consideration. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends approval of the applicant’s request to have her initiation date of the AFCM coincide with her PCS in Aug 05 (Exhibit C). Therefore we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02414
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02414 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 FEB 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His enlisted performance report closing 13 Sep 05 be voided. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed...