RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00139
INDEX CODE: 111.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The AF Forms 910, Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs), closing on
15 Jul 08 and 7 Apr 09, be voided and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was told that the overall ratings of 2 on both reports were
the result of his failure of the physical test (PT). He checked
both the fitness and promotion regulations and could not find
anything that stated failing his PT would result in an automatic
2 rating.
In support of the appeal, the applicant provides copies of his
AF Form 910, and extracts from his medical records.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant currently serves in the Regular Air Force in the
grade of technical sergeant.
His EPR profile reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
1 Oct 00 5
1 Oct 01 5
1 Oct 02 5
15 Aug 03 5
15 Aug 04 5
15 Aug 05 5
15 Aug 06 5
15 Jul 07 5
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
*15 Jul 08 2
* 7 Apr 09 2
*Contested reports
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP indicates the
applicant did submit some medical documentation; however, unless
he is exempt from all phases of the PT as determined by medical
authorities, the exemption block is not marked. In cases where
the individual may be exempt in one or more areas of PT, the
score is adjusted based only on the areas the applicant was
actually allowed to perform. Therefore, the medical
documentation does not substantiate that the EPRs were inaccurate
or unjust.
The complete AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
HQ AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE indicates the applicant
did not meet Air Force fitness standards during either reporting
period. Even if the overall ratings were upgraded, the reports
would remain referrals. DPSOE agrees with the recommendation of
AFPC/DPSIDEP, as removing the EPRs in their entirety would render
the applicant eligible for promotion consideration when, in fact,
he was not based on his fitness failure.
The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 4 Jun 10, for review and comment within 30 days. As
of this date, no response has been received by this office
(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 their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice. We note the applicant
has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate that he was
exempt from the PT during the periods of the referral EPRs.
Should he provide such evidence, the Board would be willing to
reconsider his request. In view of the above and in the absence
of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 issues 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 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-2010-00139 in Executive Session on 23 Sep 10, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. --------------, Panel Chair
Ms. --------------, Member
Mr. --------------, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Feb 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 15 Mar 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 6 Apr 10.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 10.
------------
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00706
Additionally, unit commanders may request an extension of the close-out date, when an individual is required to fitness test immediately preceding the EPR close-out date and fails to meet fitness standards. It appears the applicant contends that he was injured during the 22 Sep 08 PT test, and the test should be invalidated and the EPR closing on 9 Oct 08 should be declared void and removed from his records. Further, the Board is not persuaded the EPR should be voided, since he failed the...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01852
The report was marked down in one area, “How well does ratee comply with standards?” Her EPR profile reflects the following: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 15 Jan 03 5 15 Jan 04 5 Her EPR profile continues: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 15 Jan 05 5 16 Jul 05 5 16 Jul 06 5 **16 Jul 07 4 ** Contested report _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial and states in part, that since the applicant did not...
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 | 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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-03248
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicants military records are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C, and D. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant's request to change or void the contested EPR. DPSID states the applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02502
His records be corrected to show that he is now and was promotion eligible during the time he was placed on a Control Roster. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOA recommends closing the case, since the applicant's record currently reflects his requested actions and they do not have the history, nor are they the OPR for control roster actions; however, based on the information provided the previous RE code 4I would have been a result of...
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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 04345
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants request to remove the demotion action and restore his rank to Technical Sergeant. Therefore, in view of the fact that we have determined the evidence is sufficient to conclude there was a causal nexus between the medical condition for which the applicant received a disability discharged and his ability to attain passing scores on his FAs, we also believe it is reasonable to conclude...
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 | CY2012 | BC 2012 03485
Furthermore, because the failed FAs resulted in the applicant receiving a referral EPR and cancellation of his promotion, to the grade of technical sergeant, we recommend the referral EPR for the period of 29 Feb 2012 to 11 Jul 2012 be declared void and removed from his records and that his promotion to the grade of technical sergeant be reinstated with a date of rank and effective date of 1 Sep 2012. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 19 Sep 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 29...