AFBCMR BC-2013-01526
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for
Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States
Code, it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that:
a. The Fitness Assessments (FAs) dated 27 February 2012, 17 May 2012 and
27 September 2012 be, and hereby are, declared void and removed from the Air Force Fitness
Management System.
b. The applicants administrative demotion from technical sergeant to staff sergeant
be revoked and he be restored to the grade of technical sergeant effective and with a date of rank
of 1 September 2007.
It is further directed that applicant be provided supplemental consideration for all
appropriate ranks and cycles.
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 applicant 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.
If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for promotion to the
higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records shall be corrected to show that he
was promoted to the higher grade effective and with a date of rank as established by the
supplemental promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade
as of that date.
Executive Director
Air Force Board for Correction
of Military Records
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02479
DPPPWB states that AFPC/DPAAD1 did not receive a request for the applicant to be released for Dorm Manager duties until 22 Jan 02. It is our opinion that since the applicant was performing Dorm Manager duties, as directed by his superiors, his records should be corrected to reflect that he was assigned the appropriate CAFSC at the time he was placed in the position and that he be considered SKT exempt for the 02E6 promotion cycle. It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, evaluated this application and provided the following information regarding the impact of the two EPRs on the applicant’s promotion consideration: The first time the two EPRs impacted the applicant’s promotion consideration was cycle 94A6 to TSgt (promotions effective Aug 93–Jul 94). We therefore recommend that the contested reports be corrected as indicated...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00944 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) he has provided, rendered for the period 2 Jul 95 through 27 Nov 95, be added to his official personnel record. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02266
Members who wish to contest their commander’s determination or the severity of the punishment imposed may appeal to the next higher commander. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 15 August 2003, competent authority set aside so much of the nonjudicial punishment imposed on 16 May 2003 under Article 15, UCMJ, pertaining...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04746
The first time the contested report was used in the promotion process was cycle 11E6. The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 23 Mar 2012, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00372
At that time, he considered this submission lost and contacted his previous squadron commander. The decoration package was resubmitted with his approval to the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing, Kunsan Air Base, this being the third submission in less than three years. However, inasmuch as the applicant contends that the inclusion of the AFAM would make a difference in his selection to the grade of staff and technical sergeant in order to resolve any injustice to the applicant we recommend the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02279
The complete A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOE states, should the Board remove the three fitness failures from the applicants record, DPSOE recommends revoking the demotion orders and restoring the applicants rank to staff sergeant. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states at this time he does not have any additional evidence in support of his...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01345
If the AFBCMR voids the contested EPR, the applicant will become a selectee for promotion to TSgt during cycle 02E6, pending a favorable data verification and recommendation of the commander. If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that he is entitled to...
In this respect, the office of primary responsibility of the Air Force, HQ AFPC/DPSF, has indicated that there are several irregularities in the applicant’s Weight Management Program (WMP) case file as well as documentation from the medical practitioner supporting his contentions. The applicant’s request to be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) during Cycle 96E6 through the correction board process was considered by the Board. It is further recommended that he be provided...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2001-01974
The applicant contends that his hypothyroidism caused him to gain weight while on active duty which resulted in his demotion. While his failure to maintain Air Force weight standards was the basis for his demotion, records indicate new weight baselines were frequently established and only after repeated failures did the commander initiate demotion action. Exhibit B.