RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02942
INDEX CODE: 111.02
xxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 29 Dec 05 through 28
Dec 06 be removed or replaced with the EPR dated 29 Dec 06 through 29 Mar
07.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She received the referral EPR due to receiving an Article 15. However, the
Article 15 was set aside granting her any property, privileges or rights
affected by the punishment be restored. Another EPR was written no more
than 2 months after the contested report, which was directed by the
commander. She was told it was to be placed on top of the referral EPR.
In support of her request, applicant provides a copy of AF Form 3212,
Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, and copies of the
EPRs for the period ending 29 Dec 06 and 29 Mar 07.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of staff
sergeant.
A similar appeal by the applicant was considered and denied by the
Evaluation Reports Appeals Board. The following is a resume of her EPR
profile:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
28 Dec 02 5
28 Dec 03 5
28 Dec 04 5
28 Dec 05 5
28 Dec 06 3 (contested report)
29 Mar 07 4
On 14 Dec 06, the applicant’s commander imposed nonjudicial punishment for
violation of Article 121 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, for
stealing a box of perfume from the Air Force Base Exchange. The punishment
consisted of a reduction in grade to senior airman and a reprimand. On 25
May 07, the commander set aside that portion of the nonjudicial punishment
which called for the reduction in grade.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP advises that only the reduction in
grade was “set aside” and that punishment was not mentioned in the
contested report; therefore, the report is accurate as written. The
AFPC/DPSIDEP 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 2 Nov
07 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has
received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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. Noting that only the portion of the
Article 15 regarding her reduction in grade was set aside, not the entire
nonjudicial punishment as contended by the applicant, it is our opinion
that the requested relief is not warranted in this case. In the absence of
evidence showing that the contested report is erroneous, unjust, or that it
does not reflect an accurate depiction of her performance during the rating
period in question, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air
Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as basis for
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or
injustice.
_________________________________________________________________
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 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 Docket Number BC-2007-02942
in Executive Session on 18 Dec 07 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
Mr. Anthony P. Reardon, Member
Ms. Marcia J. Bachman, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007-
02942 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Sep 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Record of Proceedings, dated 22 May 03.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP dated 17 Oct 07.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Nov 07.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00763
She was under investigation from on/about 20 Dec 05 to 20 Jan 06. In addition, it is the commander’s responsibility to determine promotion testing eligibility. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 08.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02759
She requests the Board review the evidence presented to determine the justice of her Article 15 punishment. The evidence of record indicates the applicant's commander determined that she had committed the alleged offense of driving under the influence of alcohol, resulting in her nonjudicial punishment under Article 15. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03630
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03630 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB through TSgt) (EPR), rendered for the period 16 Mar 09 through 15 Mar 10 be replaced. DPSIDEP states there is no evidence of an error or injustice and the applicant has failed to provide any...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02691
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02691 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: JOSEPH W. KASTL HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 28 Jun 05 through 22 May 06 be declared void and removed from her records. It seems that the applicant had been accused of spousal abuse during an...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03582
Evaluators must confirm they did not provide counseling or feedback, and that this directly resulted in an unfair evaluation. The complete DPSIDEP 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 14 Dec 07, for review and comment within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES...
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 | CY2008 | BC-2007-02792
Specifically, on 16 Oct 06, he was given a profile that stated he was not world-wide deployable. AFPC/DPSIDEP indicates they have reviewed the applicant’s request for removal of the contested EPR and found no evidence the report was in error or unjust. The evidence of record indicates the applicant was given an LOR for being negligent in the performance of his duties as an NCO, which was the basis for the referral EPR.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03886
At the time of the incident which resulted in his NJP, he was serving in the grade of TSgt with the 78th Security Forces Squadron, Robins AFB, GA. On 12 May 2005, the applicant’s commander offered him NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, for disorderly conduct and assault. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation applicant submitted in support of his appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00137
When he questioned his supervisor about his performance rating, he was told he would receive a five rating. The complete DPSIDEP 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 Mar 09 for review and comment within 30 days. In addition, we note the feedback worksheet provided by the applicant supports the rating he received.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00344
f. On or about 4 Nov 05, his rater reprised against him by not recommending an end-of-tour decoration due to his stated intent to make a protected communications to the 92 ARW/IG and his commander. Further, he was never provided any feedback that his supervisor was contemplating giving him an overall “4” rating. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence...