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