RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02649
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His promotion to the grade of technical sergeant be reinstated.
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Since the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) removed his
referral report (TSgt) his grade of technical sergeant should be
reinstated. He has exhausted all unit level resources to no
avail. He filed an Article 138 Command complaint and requested
supplemental promotion consideration through his chain of
command; however, his request for promotion was denied.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his
Article 138 complaint; a copy of his ERAB appeal, and other
supporting documents.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant received an Article 15 for causing unlawful bodily
harm to a fellow member and for being drunk and disorderly. His
punishment consisted of a suspended reduction in grade to senior
airman, suspended through 31 Jan 09; forfeiture of $150.00 pay
per month for two months, and 10 days of extra duty.
The applicant received a referral report for the period 9 May 08
through 8 May 09. On 30 Mar 10, the applicant petitioned the
ERAB to have the referral report removed and, on 27 Apr 10 the
ERAB granted his appeal.
The applicant was considered and selected for promotion to the
grade of TSgt during cycle 10E6 with a pin-on date of 1 Aug 10.
The applicants EPR profile of the last ten reports follows:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL RATING
15 Aug 00 5
15 Aug 01 5
15 Aug 02 5
15 Aug 03 5
15 Aug 04 5
15 Aug 05 5
15 Aug 06 5
15 Aug 07 5
08 May 08 5
01 Dec 09 5
________________________________________________________________
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial, stating, in part that while the
referral report was removed, the applicant was not eligible for
promotion testing/consideration based on the Article 15
suspended reduction.
The applicant was considered and tentatively selected for
promotion to the grade of TSgt during cycle 09E6. He received
Promotion Sequence Number (PSN) 1421.0, which would have
incremented on 1 Oct 09; however, his line number was removed in
accordance with (IAW) the governing Air Force instruction. Upon
further review, they noted the applicant was ineligible for
promotion consideration to TSgt for cycle 09E6 and should have
not been allowed to test. This was because the promotion
eligibility status (PES) code for the Article 15 was never
updated in the system and he was erroneously considered for
promotion to TSgt during cycle 09E6.
The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant notes that IAW the governing instruction, airmen
are ineligible for promotion, if on or after the promotion
eligibility cutoff date they are undergoing a suspended
reduction under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ). His Article 15 suspended reduction was removed after
the promotion cutoff date (PECD), but prior to the original PAS
(sic) code. Subsequently, the Military Personnel Flight (MPF)
validated his testing eligibility and allowed him to test.
He was led to believe that he was able to progress in his career
with no further repercussions from the Article 15. He was
allowed to test, received a line number, had a promotion
ceremony and allowed to sew on his rank, on 1 Oct 09, and wore
the stripes for over two months. He was advised that he had to
remove his stripes and was only told it was because of the
referral EPR and a paperwork/system update error.
The applicants complete response, with attachments, is at
Exhibit E.
________________________________________________________________
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. We took notice
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of
the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its
rationale as the primary basis for our conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We
took note of the applicants contention that he was led to
believe that only the referral EPR rendered him ineligible for
promotion. However, the evidence of record clearly shows that
he received punishment under Article 15, UCMJ which rendered him
ineligible for promotion. While regrettable that the error was
made allowing him to test and to assume the grade of technical
sergeant, he has not presented sufficient evidence to persuade
us that his promotion should be reinstated. His temporary
promotion to technical sergeant was erroneous and we do not
believe it would be in the interest of justice to allow him to
retain a promotion he has not properly earned. Therefore, in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-02649 in Executive Session on 28 April 2011,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Jul 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 25 Aug 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 10.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Oct 10, w/atchs.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02569
DPSOE states members cannot test in an Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) for which they are no longer assigned. After returning from deployment, the applicant was scheduled and tested PFE only on 24 Feb 10 for cycle 10E6 in CAFSC 3D1X2 based on the AFSC conversion. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03942
The complete DPTOS evaluation is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: With regard to his request to remove and void the EPRs from Aug 06 and Oct 07, the applicant states he cannot submit anything to the ERAB without having first corrected the Article 15, because the 07 EPR hinges solely on the decision regarding the Article 15. The applicant requests his EPR ending 5 Aug 06 be removed from his record. We...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01092
The applicant was considered and tentatively selected for promotion to staff sergeant during the 09E5 promotion cycle and received the promotion sequence number 15155.0, which incremented on 1 Aug 10. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial and states that the applicant has not provided evidence of a clear error or injustice. They state that should the Board remove the applicants Article 15, the referral...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00264
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00264 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. As a result of the failed FAs, his projected promotion to the grade of SSgt was cancelled and he received a referral EPR. Although DPSOE initially recommended denial of the applicants request to be supplementally considered for promotion to...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04035 (2)
In a letter dated 22 Oct 13, the demotion authority reinstated his grade to SSgt with his original Date of Rank (DOR) of 9 Jan 13. As such, if the applicant wants to make a request to remove the referral EPRs, he must first exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief provided by existing law or regulations, such as the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) prior to seeking relief before this Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02775
________________________________________________________________ On 7 Jan 14, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) disapproved the applicants request for removal of his failed FAs from the AFFMS stating that he should have tested within the limits of his profile. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the request for removal of the failed FAs dated 4 Apr 11 and 14 Nov 11 due to the lack of supporting...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03754
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03754 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The complete HQ USAF/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends voiding the three contested EPRs,contingent upon the Board approving the applicants request to have his FA test results removed from his records. e. His effective date...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03057
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03057 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 2 July 2009 through 15 April 2010 be voided and removed from her records. The following is a resume of the applicants EPR profile: PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 20 Dec 01 (SrA)...
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 | 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...