DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00179
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) with a closeout date of
24 Apr 09 be voided and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 29 Sep 11, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s
request that his EPR be voided and removed from his records. A
complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit
D (with Exhibits A through C).
By letters, dated 30 Mar 12 and 18 Apr 12, the applicant requests
reconsideration of his request, contending that the information
is newly discovered relevant evidence and provides the response
he received from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) office.
In support of the appeal, the applicant submits excerpts from his
master personnel records and a letter from the FOIA Director of
Communications office, w/atchs.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. In earlier findings, the Board determined that there was
insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action. After
thoroughly reviewing the additional documentation submitted in
support of his appeal and the evidence of record, we do not find
it sufficient to change the Board’s earlier determination in this
case. Consequently, we are still not persuaded the applicant
should be granted removal of his EPR with a closeout date of
24 Apr 09. Therefore, in view of the above, and in the absence
of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to
recommend favorable consideration of the applicant’s request.
2. 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 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 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 the applicant’s
request for reconsideration of AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-00179
in Executive Session on 11 Apr 12 and 15 Jun 12, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following additional documentary evidence was considered:
Panel Chair
Exhibit D. Record of Proceedings, dated 17 Oct 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letters, dated 30 Mar and 18 Apr 12, w/atchs.
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00179
During the period in question, he was given a commander directed evaluation although he was not due an evaluation. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 Jul 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00720 ADDENDUM
By letter, dated 7 Jul 12, the applicant requests reconsideration of his request to have his 2005 EPR removed or voided from his record and provided additional evidence. Additionally, he requests his 2006 EPR be removed or voided from his record. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board reconsidered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-00720 in Executive Session on 4 Apr 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member ,...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03204
Applicant states the evaluation of performance markings do not match up with the rater/additional rater's comments and promotion recommendation. 3.8.5.2 states do not suspense or require raters to submit signed/completed reports any earlier than five duty days after the close-out date. The applicant contends that he did not receive feedback and that neither the rater, nor the additional rater was his rater’s rater.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-1994-04265
On 21 September 1995, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s appeal requesting that his EPR closing out 5 October 1990 be removed from his records. We have thoroughly reviewed the evidence of record and considered both the weight and relevance of the additional documentation provided by the applicant, and whether or not it was discoverable at the time of any previous application. The following members of the Board considered the applicant’s request for reconsideration of AFBCMR...
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 | CY2006 | BC-2004-01785-3
For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the application, and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit F. On 22 Nov 04, the Board considered and granted the applicant’s request to have her EPR closing 12 May 01, voided and removed from her records; and that she be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 02E5. For an accounting...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05708
On 23 Mar 2010, the applicant failed his FA with a score of 72.00. The applicant has failed to provide any information from all the rating officials on the contested report. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The EPR did not include his performance for the entire rating period.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01841
For these acts, the applicant was punished by a reduction in grade to staff sergeant, with a date of rank of 7 Mar 07, and a reprimand. The applicant was rendered a referral EPR for the period 15 Aug 06 through 15 Mar 06 (sic), which included the following statements: During this period member indecently assaulted a female Airman for which he received an Article 15/demotion, and Vast potentialdemonstrated poor judgment unbecoming of an Air Force NCOconsider for promotion. On 18 Mar...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00831
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSIDE recommends denial of the applicants request related to his EPR, indicating the applicant has not exhausted all available avenues of administrative relief prior to seeking correction of his military record. The Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) will not consider a case until all avenues of administrative relief have been exhausted. The Air Force office of primary responsibility has reviewed...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05342
The Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) directed that his EPR closing 29 Jun 06 be replaced; however, he should have been provided supplemental promotion consideration for promotion cycles 07E8 and 08E8. Regarding the applicants contention his EPR covering the period 1 Apr 05 through 30 Sep 06, which is only a matter of record because he requested that it replace another report, was in error because it was not signed by his additional rater at the time in violation of AFI 36-2406, the...