RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00079
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period ending 20 Dec 07 be removed from his records and he be given supplemental promotion consideration during cycle 09E8.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Upon leaving his assignment, he was awarded a MAJCOM annual award (PACAF IDMT SNCO of the Year) which was not added to his performance evaluation. He made it a point to have this important award noted in the Wing/CC endorsement section. He was not offered the opportunity to sign the EPR and the noted award was removed. This could potentially harm his promotion opportunities as this was the 2nd MAJCOM award in a row. It took approximately 4 months for them to begin the report which was eventually finalized in Jul 08. He believes the neglect of this information was capricious and without cause as he was not afforded the opportunity to review and sign the performance report prior to close out and forwarding to AFPC. He understands he received a "firewall five" report which may cause an overlook of this report, but promotion to the top two grades in the enlisted structure also requires a continued display of progression which was lost with this particular report in question.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his EPRs from the periods ending 20 Mar 05 to 20 Dec 07 and a copy of his Meritorious Service Medal citation.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of master sergeant (E-7) having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jul 04.
The following is a resume of the applicants EPR profile:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
20 Mar 05 5
20 Mar 06 5
20 Mar 07 5
20 Dec 07* 3
* Contested report
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states that the applicant's review is not intended for the ratee to concur or nonconcur with the contents; it is only to acknowledge receipt and there are procedures in place when the ratee is unavailable to sign, in this case due to a Permanent Change of Station. Furthermore, the applicant is not the one who determines what comments will, or will not be placed in the evaluation; that responsibility rests with the evaluator's and in this case the senior rater. Comments regarding an award are not mandatory; therefore, the omission of such does not make the report inaccurate or unjust.
The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B.
AFPC/DPSOE states the first time the contested EPR will be used in the promotion process is during cycle 09E8 to senior master sergeant (2-20 Feb 09). Should the AFBCMR remove the report as requested, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental consideration.
The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 6 Mar 09 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. After reviewing the evidence provided, we are not persuaded that the contested report is an inaccurate depiction of the applicants performance and demonstrated potential for the period in question. The applicant's contentions regarding the omission of his award are duly noted. However, we believe his assertions have been adequately addressed by the Air Force office of primary responsibility. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of AFPC/DPSID 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 persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
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 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 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-2009-00079 in Executive Session on 30 April 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2009-00079 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Jan 09, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 12 Feb 09.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 17 Feb 09.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Mar 09.
Panel Chair
2
3
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 02146
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice regarding the contested EPR. He believes the additional information he provides will show how the nuclear weapons incident on 30 Aug 07 itself solely led to his lower rating in the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02730
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 Jun 10, for review and comment...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05342
The Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) directed that his EPR closing 29 Jun 06 be replaced; however, he should have been provided supplemental promotion consideration for promotion cycles 07E8 and 08E8. Regarding the applicants contention his EPR covering the period 1 Apr 05 through 30 Sep 06, which is only a matter of record because he requested that it replace another report, was in error because it was not signed by his additional rater at the time in violation of AFI 36-2406, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04430
The applicant received the Article 15 in 2008 and the 2009 report was removed from his records, but the 2010 report was rendered under the supervision of new evaluators. Furthermore, no evidence was provided to support the contention that the 6 Mar 10 performance report was the result of the Article 15. The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He did...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01984
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01984 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the reporting period ending 16 Nov 09 be removed from her records. At first it looked promising that her husband would transfer to McGhee-Tyson, TN, where she would be assigned as an instructor. In this...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01841
For these acts, the applicant was punished by a reduction in grade to staff sergeant, with a date of rank of 7 Mar 07, and a reprimand. The applicant was rendered a referral EPR for the period 15 Aug 06 through 15 Mar 06 (sic), which included the following statements: During this period member indecently assaulted a female Airman for which he received an Article 15/demotion, and Vast potentialdemonstrated poor judgment unbecoming of an Air Force NCOconsider for promotion. On 18 Mar...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03556
His enlisted performance report (EPR) rendered for the period 16 May 08 through 15 May 09 be removed from his records. DPSID states the ERAB determined there was insufficient evidence to void the contested report; however, they were able to verify and administratively correct the number of days of supervision. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03443
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The letter of reprimand (LOR) and referral EPR he received are not the norm in the Air Force for first time fitness assessment (FA) failures. The applicant failed the FA almost five months before the close- out of the evaluation in question and had over four months from the time of his FA failure to overcome the deficiency. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05244
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05244 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the reporting period 14 Mar 09 through 13 Mar 10, be declared void and removed from her military personnel records. At the time, there were no provisions that authorized the one- mile walk component...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04096
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends approval of the applicants request to remove the 21 Oct 10 and 21 Dec 10 FAs from her records. Based on the documentation provided by the applicant, it is determined that the applicant was pregnant at the time the FAs were administered on 21 Oct...