RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01092 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His rank of staff sergeant be reinstated with his original date 
of rank of 1 Mar 07. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He believes his records are in error and unjust due to the lack 
of compliance with Air Force instructions by the office of 
primary responsibility and past and present unit staff. This 
failure of compliance was a severe inequity to him. 

 

He was unaware of the impact that his referral enlisted 
performance report (EPR) would have on his promotion 
eligibility. He was allowed to test for promotion and was 
selected; however, his selection was voided as a result of his 
EPR. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of 
records extracted from his master personnel records, an 
Achievement Medal Citation, a clemency request, a request for 
set aside actions with a response, extracts of AFI 36-2110, Assignments, and letters of support. 

 

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 4 Jun 02. 

 

On 20 Jan 09, the applicant’s commander offered him nonjudicial 
punishment in the form of an Article 15, Record of Nonjudicial 
Punishment. The applicant was charged with failure to obey an 
order establishing restricted hours for “Bar Row” in Fussa City, 
Japan, in violation of Article 19, Uniform Code of Military 
Justice (UCMJ). 

 

On 29 Jan 09, the commander determined the applicant committed 
the alleged offense and imposed punishment consisting of a 
reduction in grade from staff sergeant to senior airman, 


restriction to the base for 30 days, 30 days extra duty, and a 
reprimand. 

 

On 3 Feb 09, the applicant submitted an appeal; however, it was 
denied. On 9 Apr 09, the applicant submitted a remission 
request for his reduction to senior airman; however, the request 
was denied. 

 

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. However, the applicant’s referral EPR, 
which closed-out 1 Mar 09, automatically cancelled his 
promotion. On 2 Mar 09, the applicant was advised in writing 
that the referral EPR may affect his promotion eligibility for 
personnel actions such as promotion. 

 

A resume of the applicant’s EPRs follows: 

 

 CLOSEOUT DATE OVERALL RATING 

 

 15 Jan 04 4 

 15 Jan 05 5 

 15 Jan 06 5 

 15 Jan 07 5 

 15 Jan 08 5 

 *30 Sep 09 4 

 

*Contested report. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial and states that the applicant has 
not provided evidence of a clear error or injustice. 

 

JAJM states that the applicant does not contest either the basis 
for his nonjudicial punishment or the commander’s selection of 
punishment. Rather, he focuses on circumstances subsequent to 
the imposition of his nonjudicial punishment. None of the 
circumstances discussed by the applicant establish error or 
injustice in the Article 15 action or otherwise warrant setting 
aside the reduction in rank imposed by the applicant’s 
commander. Further, he was afforded and took advantage of the 
opportunity to present matters to his commander and to appeal 
his nonjudicial punishment to the next higher commander. The 
applicant alleges, and the record reveals, no error or injustice 
in the processing of his Article 15 action. 

 

The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSOE defers to AFLOA/JAJM. They state that should the 
Board remove the applicant’s Article 15, the referral report 


would need to be corrected to reflect the applicant’s rank as 
staff sergeant rather than senior airman. His original date of 
rank to staff sergeant was 1 Mar 07. This date of rank alone 
makes him eligible for promotion consideration to technical 
sergeant beginning with cycle 09E6; however, since the applicant 
is not requesting the referral EPR be removed; it would render 
him ineligible for promotion consideration for cycle 09E6. The 
applicant would, however, be eligible for promotion 
consideration for cycle 10E6 since his EPR closing 30 Sep 09 was 
not a referral report. 

 

The complete HQ 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 30 Jul 10 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E). As of this date, this office has not received a 
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. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 
AFLOA/JAJM and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or 
injustice. 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 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-2010-01092 in Executive Session on 5 October 2010, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Mar 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 1 Jun 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOE, dated 13 Jul 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jul 10. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair