RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02543
                       INDEX CODE:  111.02

                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  26 FEB 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected to:

      a.    Remove the Letter of Reprimand (LOR)  dated  20  September
2005 from her records.

      b.    Void the Enlisted Performance Report  (EPR)  rendered  for
the period 23 July 2005 to 28 February 2006.

      c.    Award the Meritorious Service  Medal  with  8th  Oak  Leaf
Cluster (MSM w/8 OLC).

      d.    Adjust her duty history to reflect she was fully qualified
to continue to receive special duty assignment pay (SDAP).

      e.    Direct promotion to Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt).
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The EPR was predicated on an unwarranted  and  unjustified  Letter  of
Reprimand. The LOR was administered by a person who at  the  time  was
not her reporting official (CMSgt  B).  Her  Commander  and  reporting
official  ignored  due  process.  CMSgt  B  directly  influenced   her
Commander to give her the EPR. The EPR ratings are an abomination  and
an overt attempt to derail her opportunity to compete for promotion to
the highest enlisted grade in the Air Force.

In support of her appeal the applicant submitted a  statement,  copies
of the EPR, LOR, EPR Inputs, Draft for  MSM,  First  Sergeant  Academy
Faculty Folder, and Personnel Data (Vmpf).

Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) in
the grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt) and is currently  assigned
to Davis-Monthan AFB in her primary career field.

The applicant’s EPR profile as SMSgt reflects the following:

                 PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL EVALUATION

                     31 Mar 03                           5
                     11 Jan 04                           5
                     22 Jul 04                           5
                     22 Jul 05                           5
                    *28 Feb 06                           4

* Contested Report.

The applicant did not appeal the contested report under the provisions
of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Reports.

Applicant was considered, but not selected for promotion to the  grade
of CMSgt by the CY06E9 CMSgt Evaluation Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the applicant’s request to void her 28 February
2006 EPR from  her  records  be  denied.   They  state  the  applicant
contends her commandant was biased  towards  her  and  influenced  her
rater to complete an unfair EPR.  The applicant has not  provided  any
documentation proving her rater accomplished  her  performance  report
based on biased information.  She has not  provided  any  evidence  to
show the report was inaccurate or unjust.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate  as  written
when  it  becomes  a  matter  of  record.   They  further  state,   to
effectively challenge an EPR, it is imperative to hear  from  all  the
members of the rating  chain--not  only  for  support,  but  also  for
clarification and explanation.  The applicant  has  not  provided  any
information or documented support  from  her  rating  chain,  official
substantiation of an error or an injustice from the Inspector  General
(IG) or Military Equal Opportunity.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is attached  at  Exhibit
C.

AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request for the 8th OLC  to  the
MSM be denied.  They  state  in  accordance  with  the  Department  of
Defense (DOD) Manual, the MSM is  awarded  to  members  of  the  Armed
Forces of the United  States  (US)  who  distinguished  themselves  by
outstanding noncombat meritorious achievement or service  to  the  US.
The acts of services rendered must be comparable to that required  for
the Legion of Merit (LOM), but in a duty of lesser though considerable
responsibility.  They further state Air Force  Instruction  (AFI)  36-
2803, paragraph 3.3, states “Forward all recommendations  through  the
normal  chain  of  command  of  the  person  being  recommended.   The
commander or vice commander at each headquarters designated to  review
recommendatios  must  personally  review  and  sign   the   forwarding
endorsement for each.   Each  intermediate  commander  must  recommend
approval or disapproval of the recommendation or recommend award of  a
higher or lesser  decoration.”   There  was  no  other  recommendation
located from the applicant’s recommending official, other than the MSM
package which was submitted and not supported due to the referral EPR.
 Furthermore, it is the recommending official’s decision to  determine
whether a decoration recommendation will be  submitted  in  accordance
with the governing AFI.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the applicant’s  request  be  denied.   They
state current AF policy does not allow for automatic promotion.   They
further state if  the  applicant’s  request  to  void  the  report  in
question and or grant the award  for  the  MSM  and  provided  she  is
otherwise eligible, the applicant will  be  entitled  to  supplemental
promotion consideration  beginning  with  cycle  06E9.   The  Military
Personnel Data Personnel Data System (MilPDS) reflects  the  applicant
has received 7 MSMs, the basic through the 6th OLC.  However,  if  the
Board awards the requested  MSM  for  the  period  in  question,  they
recommend it be properly identified as the 8th device (7th OLC).

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is attached  at  Exhibit
E.

HQ AFPC/DPSO recommends the applicant’s request to have the LOR  dated
20 September 2005 removed from her records be denied.  They state  the
use of the LOR  by  commanders  and  supervisors  is  an  exercise  of
supervisory authority and responsibility.  Based on the circumstances,
the applicant failed to provide evidence to support her request.   The
LOR the applicant received was administered  in  accordance  with  the
AFI.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSO evaluation is attached at Exhibit F.

HQ AFPC/DPSO recommends the  applicant’s  request  to  have  her  duty
history corrected to reflect she was qualified to continue to  receive
special  duty  assignment  pay  (SDAP)  be  denied.   They  state   in
accordance with the AFI 36-3017, Table 3, Rule 1, the actions taken by
the military personnel flight (MPF) to update the applicant’s  primary
Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) to First Sergeant  was  correct.   The
applicant’s SDAP was stopped due to her removal from  the  instruction
position.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSO evaluation is attached at Exhibit G.

HQ AFPC/JA recommends the requested  relief  be  denied.   They  state
considering the totality of the evidence  and  circumstances  of  this
case, it cannot be said that the commandant abused his  discretion  in
taking the administrative action.

A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is attached at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  26
January 2007 for review and response.  As of this  date,  no  response
has been received by this office (Exhibit I).

_________________________________________________________________

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.   Applicant’s  numerous
contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these  assertions,
in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override   the
rationale provided by the offices of the Air Force.  The applicant did
not provide persuasive evidence to establish that the LOR she received
was unjust or unwarranted; the  contested  EPR  was  not  an  accurate
reflection of her performance or that she should be directly  promoted
to the grade of Chief Master  Sergeant.   Additionally,  there  is  no
documentation to substantiate she was recommended for the award of the
8th device to the MSM by  her  recommending  official;  and  when  her
primary AFSC was updated to First Sergeant, she was no longer eligible
for  special  duty  assignment  pay  as  she  was  removed  from   her
instructors position.   We  therefore  agree  with  the  opinions  and
recommendations of the Air force and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed  to  sustain  her
burden that she has suffered either an error or an injustice.   Hence,
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 following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-02543 in Executive Session on 29 March 2007, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Chair
                 Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
                 Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Aug 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Enlisted Performance Reports.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 18 Sep 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 27 Sep 06.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 4 Oct 06.
      Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPSO, dated 22 Nov 06.
      Exhibit G. Letter, AFPC/DPSO, dated 18 Dec 06.
      Exhibit H. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 18 Jan 07.
      Exhibit I. Letter, SAF/MRBE, dated 26 Jan 07.




                       RICHARD A. PETERSON
                       Panel Chair