RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01327 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His date of rank (DOR) to senior master sergeant (SMSgt) be 
recalculated/adjusted based on the award of an Air Force 
Commendation Medal (AFCM), beginning with the 2000 (00E8) 
promotion cycle. 


 

2. His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), closing out 
1 September 2000, be replaced with a reaccomplished EPR and he be 
considered for supplemental promotion boards beginning with the 
01E8 promotion cycle. 


 

3. His, EPR closing out 12 October 1990, be removed from his 
records. 


 

4. His EPR, closing out 2 February 1994, be considered for 
supplemental promotion to the grade of chief master beginning 
with the 96E8 cycle. 


 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. In 1994, his Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) was downgraded to 
an AFCM. Due to mismanagement, he did not receive his AFCM 
(worth three promotion points) until 2002. He was denied 
promotion to SMSgt (E-8) by the 00E8 promotion board by 
1.52 points. 

 

2. The EPR closing out 12 October 1990, with a “4” rating, had a 
negative impact on his board scores during the 96E8 through 
02E8 promotion cycles. Since then, he has received an overall 
“5” rating on all EPRs for the last 19 years. Prior to receiving 
the “4” EPR in 1990, he received all “9” airman performance 
reports (APRs). During the transition from APRs to EPRs, there 
was a misconception that EPRs were based on a quota system. He 
should have received an overall “5” EPR rating. His performance 
feedbacks and instructor evaluations were good and did not 
indicate he was not performing to that capacity. 

 

3. His raters knowingly excluded key achievements in his EPR 
closing out 1 September 2000, which may have increased his board 
scores enough to be promoted during the 01E8 and 04E9 promotion 
cycles. In June 2001, he requested to have the EPR corrected and 


 

 

to be considered for supplemental promotion; however, AFPC 
disapproved his request. AFPC stated there were no statements 
from members of original rating chain. He resubmitted the package 
with statements from his rating chain; however, this request was 
also disapproved. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of character reference letters, the Guide for 
Submitting Decorations and extract copies from his personnel 
records. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 28 February 1983, the applicant contracted his initial 
enlistment in the Regular Air Force. On 1 May 2010, he was 
voluntarily retired in the grade of chief master sergeant 
(CMSgt). 

 

On 17 April 1993, he was recommended for the award of the MSM for 
the period of 1 May 1991 to 17 May 1993 due to a permanent change 
of station assignment (PCS); however, it was denied. 

 

The applicant filed a complaint with the Air Intelligence Agency 
Inspector General (IG). On 15 July 1996, the IG concluded the 
incumbent commander stopped the applicant’s award of the MSM and 
that he was properly considered for an award. 

 

He was considered but not selected for promotion to the grade of 
SMSgt during the 96, 97, 98, 99, 00 and 01, E-8 promotion cycles. 

 

He was considered and selected for promotion to the grade of 
SMSgt during the CY02E8 promotion cycle, having assumed that 
grade effective and with a DOR of 1 May 2002. 

 

He was considered but not selected for promotion to the grade of 
CMSgt during the 04E9 promotion cycle. 

 

He was considered and selected for promotion to the grade of 
CMSgt during the 05E9 promotion cycle having assumed that grade 
effective and with a DOR of 1 June 2006. 

 

The applicant filed several appeals through the Evaluation 
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) contending the EPRs, closing out 
12 October 1990 and 1 September 2000 were inaccurate and unjust. 
The ERAB was not convinced the contested reports were inaccurate 
or unjust In July 2002, the ERAB approved the correction to the 
“From” date on the 2 February 1994 EPR and removed the AF Form 


77, Letter of Evaluation, covering the period of 13 October 
1992 to 12 October 1993. 

 

On 4 March 2002, the Defense Courier Service Commander, 
recommended the applicant for the award of the AFCM for the 
period of 1 May 1991 to 17 May 1993, with a desired presentation 
date of 31 March 2002. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of his request to change his DOR to 
SMSgt. DPSOE states the application was not submitted in a 
timely manner. The applicant is requesting corrections to his 
record that date back between 10 and 20 years. 

 

DPSOE states on 21 April 2003, AFPC/DPPPW denied supplemental 
consideration for cycle 00E8 based on the award of the AFCM. 
DPPPW states the award was in noncompliance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, which states that a resubmitted 
decoration for any reason must meet the same criteria as the 
original decoration, specifically, placed into official channels 
prior to the date selects are made. AFI 36-2803, The Air Force 
Awards and Decorations Program, defines “official channels” as 
the first endorsement to the Décor 6, usually the commander’s 
endorsement. The commander did not sign the applicant’s Décor 
6 until 4 March 2002, well after selections were made for cycle 
00E8 on 3 March 2000. 

 

DPSOE states the removal of the 12 October 1990 EPR would only 
add 5.40 points to his score and he missed promotion by 
42.19 points during the 93E7 promotion cycle. The applicant was 
selected to the grade of master sergeant (MSgt) during the 
94E7 cycle. 

 

DPSOE states AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial to remove the 
12 October 1990 EPR. DPSIDEP states that once a report is 
accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants 
correction or removal from an individual’s record. The burden of 
proof is on the applicant. The applicant has not substantiated 
an error or injustice with the contested report. The applicant 
was selected for promotion to the grade of MSgt with the 
contested report during the 94E7 promotion cycle. The only other 
time the contested report was used was in the 96E8 cycle to 
SMSgt. His EPR score was 132.00, his board score was 382.50, his 
total score was 607.83 and the score required for selection to 
SMSgt was 705.24. The removal of the contested report would only 
increase his EPR score to 135 and he would require a board score 
of 491.91; however, since the highest board score one can be 
given is 450, the applicant would remain a nonselect for this 
cycle. 

 


DPSOE states should the Board substitute the 1 September 2000 
EPR, the applicant would be entitled to supplemental promotion 
consideration beginning with cycle 01E8. His EPR score was 135, 
his board score was 337.50, his total score was 613.29 and the 
score required for selection was 646.56 for the 01E8 promotion 
cycle. 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial of his request for supplemental 
promotion consideration to the grade of CMSgt, to remove his EPR 
ending 12 October 1990, and to replace his 1 September 2000 EPR 
with a reaccomplished EPR. DPSIDEP states, there is no error or 
injustice and the evaluations reports should remain in the 
applicant’s records. DPSIDEP states the applicant has not 
substantiated an error or injustice with the 12 October 1990 EPR. 
An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating 
chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. The burden of 
proof is on the applicant. It appears the evaluation was rendered 
in good faith by all evaluations based on knowledge available at 
the time. The applicant now contends the 12 October 1990 EPR was 
based on a “misconception that EPRs were based off a quota 
system,” which is incorrect. The applicant feels he deserves an 
overall rating of “5” rather than an overall rating of “4.” In 
1989, with the implementation of the revised Enlisted Evaluation 
System (EES), there was information released to the Air Force on 
expectations on the amount of enlisted personnel receiving an 
overall rating of “5”; however, that was quickly dispelled in 
1990. 

 

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 8 October 2010 for review and comment within 
30 days. As of this date, this office has not received a 
response (Exhibit D). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took 
careful 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 for our conclusion that the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We 
do not find his assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently 
persuasive in this matter. Additionally, we are not persuaded 
that the contested reports are not a true and accurate assessment 
of his performance during the specified time period or that the 
ratings he received were in error or contrary to the provisions 
of the governing instruction. Regarding his request for 
supplemental promotion consideration, since we find no error with 
the contested reports, there exists no basis upon which to direct 
supplemental promotion consideration. In addition, since his 
AFCM was not placed into official channels prior to the date the 
selections were made, we find no basis to conclude that his DOR 
should be changed based on the receipt of this medal. As such, 
the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he 
has suffered an error or injustice. Absent persuasive evidence 
that he was denied rights to which he was entitled or treated 
differently from others similarly situated, 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 issue(s) 
involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 Docket Number BC-
2010-01327 in Executive Session on 17 March 2011, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

Panel Chair 

Member 

Member 

 

 

 

 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number 
BC-2010-01327 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Feb 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 14 Jul 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 15 Sep 10 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 10. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair