RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04430 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His AF Forms 910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt) 
rendered for the periods 7 Mar 08 through 6 Mar 09 (administratively corrected) and 7 Mar 09 through 6 Mar 10 be 
removed from his records. 

 

2. He receive supplemental consideration for promotion to the 
grade of to Staff Sergeant (SSgt). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He received an Article 15 for falling asleep on duty. He 
believes he should not have received the Article due to him being 
diagnosed with Obstructive Sleep Apnea during the period in 
question. The Article 15 and the contested performance reports 
prevented him from testing for promotion for two cycles. His 
commander eventually set aside the Article 15 in its entirety. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of 
documents extracted from his military personnel records. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 7 Jun 05, the applicant contracted his enlistment in the 
Regular Air Force. 

 

On 25 Jul 08, the applicant received an Article 15 for sleeping 
on post on or about 1 May 08. His punishment consisted of a 
reprimand, 30 days of extra duty, and reduction in grade to 
Airman First Class with a new date of rank of 25 Jul 08. 

 

By a letter dated 7 Jan 09, the applicant’s Otolaryngologist 
indicated the applicant had been under her care for chronic 
sinusitis and obstructive sleep apnea since 3 Sep 08. 

 


The applicant’s EPR profile is listed below: 

 

 PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 

 

 6 Mar 07 5 

 6 Mar 08 5 

 * **6 Mar 09 3 

 *6 Mar 10 3 

 

*Contested Reports 

**Referral Report 

 

On 12 Nov 10, the applicant’s commander set aside the 25 Jul 08 
nonjudicial punishment in its entirety. 

 

The applicant did not file an appeal with the Evaluation Report 
Appeals Board (ERAB). However, the ERAB reviewed the application 
and approved voiding the 6 Mar 09 performance report; however, 
the ERAB denied removal of the 6 Mar 10 performance report as 
they were not convinced it was inaccurate or unjust. 

 

On 23 Jan 11, the applicant was relieved from active duty and 
placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a 50 
percent disability rating on 24 Jan 11. He served 5 years, 
7 months, and 17 days of active service. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove 
the 2010 performance report. 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. This performance report is not a referral report; 
it is an average evaluation with no negative comments or ratings. 
DPSID notes the commander which set aside the nonjudicial 
punishment is not the same commander which had oversight of the 
contested report. 

 

Furthermore, no evidence was provided to support the contention 
that the 6 Mar 10 performance report was the result of the 
Article 15. The applicant has not provided any statements from 
the evaluator who signed the report indicating that it was 
influenced by the nonjudicial punishment. Without support from 
the evaluators who signed the report, it must be assumed the 
report in question is an accurate assessment of the applicant’s 
performance during the period in question. 

The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE states the applicant was provided supplemental 
consideration for promotion to the grade of SSgt by the 09E5 and 
10E5 cycles, but was nonselected for both cycles. However, if 
the Board directs removal of the 2010 performance report he will 


be entitled to supplemental consideration for promotion to the 
grade of SSgt beginning with cycle 10E5. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He did not appeal the report in question through the ERAB because 
he was told the AFBCMR was the only way to correct the report. 
As for the assertion that his 2010 report was not the result of 
the Article 15, the applicant indicates he received the contested 
rating because he was not allowed to carry a firearm because of 
the Article 15. As a result, his former supervisor told him that 
he would not rate him higher than a three because he was not 
fully performing his duties. His former supervisor does not want 
to get involved in the situation. Also, as a result of receiving 
the Article 15 and undergoing an MEB he missed the opportunity 
for promotion by the 09E5, 10E5, and 11E5 promotion testing 
cycles. 

 

The commander who set aside the Article 15 is the current 
commander of his former supervisor and is in a prime position to 
evaluate whether the EPR was warranted. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit F. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

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

 

2. The application was timely filed. 

 

3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. After a 
thorough review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we 
believe sufficient doubt has been raised regarding equity of the 
contested EPR. Although AFPC/DPSID indicates the contested 
report was not the result of the Article 15 action, we believe 
the applicant has raised sufficient doubt the rating was not at 
least indirectly attributable to the Article 15 which was 
ultimately removed from the applicant’s records. Therefore, we 
believe any doubt should be resolved in favor of the applicant. 
Accordingly, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent 
set forth below. 

 

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 RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that the AF Form 
910, Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSGT), rendered for the 
period 7 March 2009 through 6 March 2010 be declared void and 
removed from his records. 

 

It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental 
consideration for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) 
for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 10E5. 

 

If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to 
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and 
unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would 
have rendered the individual ineligible for the promotion, such 
information will be documented and presented to the Board for a 
final determination on the individual’s qualification for the 
promotion. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-04430 in Executive Session on 7 Sep 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

 

All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Nov 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 25 Feb 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 28 Mar 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Apr 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair