AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-02298 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
    
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1.  Her  non-recommendation  for  promotion  to  master  sergeant  be 
permanently removed from her personnel records. 
 
2. Her line number to master sergeant be reinstated. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
1. On 24 Feb 12, she requested to be released as her commander’s 
enlisted aide.  He released her from her position and asked her 
what her career plans were and offered to assist her by working 
with the Command Chief.  In the same conversation, she told him 
that she hoped there were no ill thoughts or feelings, and that 
her  decision  was  the  hardest  one  she  had  ever  made.    The 
commander replied, “he didn’t have ill will or ill thoughts and 
that  some  things  just  don’t  work  out.”    The  commander  never 
indicated that her request would have a derogatory impact on her 
career or that he intended to non-recommend her for promotion or 
influence her next job selection.   
 
2. On 16 May 12, the commander informed her by telephone that his 
intent  was  to  non-recommend  her  promotion  selection  to  master 
sergeant.  He also informed her that she had been removed from 
the  public  promotion  list  and  the  formal  notification  was 
forthcoming.  His reason for this action was, “that my decision 
to  relinquish  my  duties  as  his  enlisted  aide  did  not  show  my 
commitment  to  excellence,  therefore,  he  was  nonrecommending  me 
for promotion to a Master Sergeant.”  This was the only contact 
she  had  with  him  since  she  left  his  office  on  24 Feb  12.    The 
next  morning  the  Command  Chief  presented  her  with  the  letter 
informing her of her non-selection for promotion.   
 
3.  She  asked  the  Command  Chief  about  her  pending  special  duty 
package with the Air Force Academy.  The Command Chief informed 
her that the commander would not endorse her package due to the 
same  reasons  mentioned  in  his  non-recommendation  for  promotion 
letter. 
 
4.  She  feels  the  commander’s  actions  are  clearly  unfair  and  an 
arbitrary  abuse  of  his  discretion  based  on  the  facts  of  the 
 
 

conduct, 

effective 

including 

matter.  Further, she received a “5” on her Enlisted Performance 
Report (EPR) that closed out on 10 Feb 12, which says that the he 
rated  her  as  “truly  among  the  best,”  that  affirms  that  he 
believed that she was ready for immediate promotion and that she 
was  also  ready  for  senior  non-commissioned  officer  (SNCO) 
responsibilities. 
 
In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy of her 
commander’s  non-recommendation  for  promotion  letter,  copies  of 
her EPRs, and letters of support. 
 
Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 17 May 12, the AFSPC/CC (applicant’s commander) notified the 
applicant  that  he  was  non-recommending  her  for  promotion  to 
master sergeant.  The specific reasons for the decision were that 
she had not consistently demonstrating the highest standards of 
professional 
leadership, 
followership,  and  commitment  to  excellence;  and  that  she 
requested  to  be  relieved  of  the  responsibilities  of  that 
position.    Her  behavior  was  inconsistent  with  the  standards 
expected of an NCO, and demonstrated that she was not ready to 
assume the responsibilities of a SNCO. 
 
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the 
Air Force, which is at Exhibit B. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial by stating that commanders have the 
authority to non-recommend members for promotion whom they feel 
are  not  ready  to  assume  the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  the 
next higher rank.  Further, the commander is in the best position 
to  evaluate  the  applicant’s  potential  and  eligibility  for 
promotion, and acted within his authority when he decided to non-
recommend her for promotion to master sergeant.  
 
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit B. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 

 

2 

2.  She  requested  release  as  the  enlisted  aide  based  on 

The  applicant responded by reiterating her original contentions 
and further explains the reason that she believes the commander 
acted  in  an  egregious  manner  by  abusing  his  discretionary 
authority.   
 
 
 
1. She never received any letters of counseling or letters 
of  reprimand  that  would  have  informed  her  of  her  commander’s 
opinion.    While  working  under  his  supervision,  she  received  a 
formal mid-term feedback that was a one-way conversation.  When 
she  received  her  “5”  EPR,  she  thought  she  made  all  necessary 
adjustments to ensure her success. 
 
 
internal insight and advice from her support network.   
 
 
3.  The  commander’s  reason  for  his  actions  is  a  direct 
conflict to her EPR rating.  Further, according to the governing 
instructions, “if ratees have been absent from their supervisor, 
a supervisor must consult with those with direct supervision over 
the ratee to form accurate ratings/opinions.”   
 
4. There was no contact with her commander in any form and 
 
she never received any guidance that a promotion to the rank of 
master sergeant would be non-recommended based on the reasons he 
provided to her in his non-recommendation letter.  In addition, 
the AFSPC First Sergeant stated that she personally requested an 
official change of reporting official two times because she did 
not have a formal supervisor where she was working; however, the 
First Sergeant’s request was denied both times. 
 
5.  She  provides  specific  facts  that  provides  an  accurate 
 
depiction of her airmanship and in part offers some evidence as 
to why she has earned and deserves to be promoted to the grade of 
master sergeant. 
 
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit D. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
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.    After  a 
thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s 
submission, we are not persuaded that her non-recommendation for 
promotion  to  master  sergeant  should  be  removed  and  her  line 

 

3 

number  reinstated.    We  find  that  since  the  commander  was  not 
confident  in  her  ability  to  assume  the  responsibility  of  the 
higher grade his decision to non-recommend her for promotion was 
appropriate and within his discretionary authority.  We find no 
evidence  of  an  error  in  the  non-recommendation  process  and  are 
not persuaded by the applicant’s assertions that the action was 
unjust.  The evidence submitted does not successfully refute the 
opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  Air  Force  office  of  primary 
responsibility.    Therefore,  we  adopt  their  rationale  and 
recommendation  as  the  basis  for  their  conclusion  that  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  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-02298 in Executive Session on 25 Oct 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 

, Panel Chair 
, Member 
, Member 

 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 May 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 6 Jul 12. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Aug 12. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Sep 12. 
 
 
 
 
                                    
                                   PanelChair

 

4