? 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 97-00286 

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 (7OA  Stat 116), it is directed that: 

Th 
rtment of the Air Force 
be corrected to show 
relating 
that the 
10, rendered for the 
period 15 July 1993 through 14 March 1995, be, and hereby is, declared 
void and removed from his records. 

&&  E 

/ Director 

R U 

Air Force Review Boards Agency 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  9 7 - 0 0 2 8 6  
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REUUESTS THAT: 

The  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR) rendered  for  the  period 
15 Jul  93  through 1 4   Mar  95  be  corrected to reflect an overall 
rating of \\5,,. 

_ _  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

According  to  feedback  sessions  and  the  Performance  Feedback 
Worksheet  (PFW) held  with his  supervisor all marks were  to the 
far right and he had no indications that improvement was needed. 
In support of  the  appeal, applicant  submits a  statement, dated 
5 Jun 96,  from the rater who states she was not previously aware 
of events that the applicant had accomplished,. . .until after the 
report was a matter of record and fellow supervisors had informed 
her  of  their  exclusion. 
The  applicant  now  provides  another 
letter, dated 5  Jun 97,  from the rater in which she now states, 
\\His exemplary performance  is  reflected  in  all  of  this  PFWs. 
Lack  of  knowledge  on  my  part  in  how  to  properly  evaluate  a 
person's performance to determined a proper EPR rating led me to 
choose  a  rating  lower  than  what  the  applicant  should  have 
received.,'  He also submits a statement from the indorser, dated 
13  Jun  96,  citing  several  of  the  applicant's  accomplishments 
during the rating period.  The indorser states upon learning of 
the EPR  situation, he  conducted a review of  the past  events and 
interviewed  supervisors  to  ascertain  the  validity  of  the 
revisions  on  the  contested  EPR. 
He  now  believes  the 
reaccomplished  EPR  more  accurately  reflects  the  applicant's 
accomplishments, and supports the request for replacement. 

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The applicant  is currently serving, in the Regular Air  Force in 
the grade of senior airman. 

9740286 

The applicant submitted a similar application under AFI 36-2401, 
Correcting  Officer  and  Enlisted  Evaluation  Reports. 
The 
Evaluation  Report  Appeal  Board  was  not  convinced  by  the 
applicant's  documentation  and  denied  the  appeal. 
Another 
individual initially appealed under AFI 36-2603  on behalf of the 
applicant  requesting  the  contested  EPR  be  replaced  with  a 
reaccomplished  version.  The  application  was  returned  to  the 
applicant  requesting  that  he  submit  a  DD  Form  149  with  his 
signature.  Instead of  replacing the  EPR  with  a  reaccomplished 
version, he is now requesting that the EPR be upgraded to a 5 .   A 
copy of the first DD Form 149 is attached. 

EPR profile since 1995 reflects the following: 

PERIOD ENDING 
*14 Mar 95 
14 Mar 96 
14 Mar 97 
*Contested Report 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

- 

4 
5 
5 

The Acting  Chief, Appeals  and  SSB  Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed 
this application and states that the rater must  have been aware 
of  the  applicant's  career  development  course  (CDC) performance 
since  she  would  have  been  both  his  trainer  and  the  one  to 
initiate upgrade action following the CDC completion.  They state 
that while the PFWs provided by the applicant have complimentary 
comments on them, they note that not one of them has markings to 
the  far right in Section 111 which indicates to them that there 
was  some  room  for  improvement  in  the  applicant's  performance. 
Furthermore, while  they realize the promotion recommendation in 
section IV of  the report  is intended to  compare the  ratee with 
others  of  the  same  grade  and  similar  duties,  they  note  the 
markings on the front side in section I11 are commensurate with 
the  promotion  recommendation. 
Even  further,  the  indorser 
concurred and signed the report as rendered.  Evaluation reports 
are considered accurate as written unless substantial evidence to 
the  contrary is provided;  and  as  such, they  receive exhaustive 
reviews prior  to  becoming  a matter  of  record.  Reports can be 
rewritten to be more hard hitting, to provide embellishments, or 
enhance the ratee's promotion potential; but the time to do that 
is before  it  becomes  a matter  of  record.  The  appeals process 
does  not  exist  to  recreate  history  or  enhance  chances  for 
promotion.  However, they are not convinced the contested report 
is not accurate as written.  Therefore, they recommend denial of 
applicant's request for removal and replacement. 

2 

. 

97-00286 

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 

The Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed 
this  application  and  states  that  should  the  Board  void  the 
contested report in its entirety, upgrade the overall rating, or 
make  any  other  significant change, providing  the  applicant  is 
otherwise  eligible,  the  applicant  will  be  entitled  to 
supplemental promotion consideration commencing with cycle 9635. 

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were  forwarded to applicant 
on 7 July 1997 for review and  response within  30 days.  As  of 
this date, no response has been received by this office. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

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

2.  The application was timely filed. 

3.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
reviewing  the  supporting  documentation  submitted  by  the 
applicant, we  believe  the  contested  report  is  not  an  accurate 
assessment  of  applicant’s performance  during  the  period  in 
question. The rater, in her statement dated 5 Jun 96, states she 
was  not  previously  aware  of  events  that  the  applicant  had 
accomplished,...until after the report was a matter of record and 
fellow  supervisors  had  informed  her  of  their  exclusion.  The 
5 Jun 97, now states, “His 
rater, in another statement dated 
exemplary performance  is reflected in all of his PFWs.  Lack of 
knowledge  on  my  part  in  how  to  properly  evaluate  a  person‘s 
performance to determine a proper EPR  led me  to choose a rating 
The 
lower  than  what  the  applicant  should  have  received.,, 
applicant also submits a  statement  from  the  indorser, dated  13 
Jun 96, citing several of the applicant’s accomplishments during 
the rating period.  The indorser states upon learning of the EPR 
situation,  he  conducted  a  review  of  the  past  events  and 
interviewed  supervisors  to  ascertain  the  validity  of  the 
revisions  on  the  contested  EPR;  and  he  now  believes  the 
reaccomplished  EPR  more  accurately  reflects  the  applicant’s 
accomplishments, and  supports the  request  for  replacement.  In 
view of the foregoing, and in an effort to offset any possibility 
of an injustice, we believe the contested EPR should be declared 
void and removed from his records. 

3 

97-00286 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating  to  APPLICANT, be  corrected  to  show  that  the  Enlisted 
Performance  Report,  AF  Form  910,  rendered  for  the  period 
15 Jul  9 3   through 14 Mar  95, be  declared void  and  removed from 
his records. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 6  November 1997, under the provisions of AFI 
3 6 - 2 6 0 3  : 

Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chairman 
Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 
Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner  (without vote) 

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

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Jun 97. 
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 20 Jun 97. 
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 5 Feb 97. 
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 Jul 97. 

d+f 

VAUG  N E. SCHLUNZ 
Panel Chairman 

4 

D E P A R T M E N T   O F   T H E  AIR  FORCE 

H E A D Q U A R T E R S   AIR  FORCE  P E R S O N N E L  C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H   AIR  FORCE  B A S E   T E X A S  

MEMORANDUM FOR AFPUDPPPAB 

AFBCMR 
IN TURN 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPWB 

550 C Street West, Ste 8 
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 1 1 

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Records 

Requested Action.  The applicant is requesting the AFBCMR substitute his Enlisted Performance 
Report (EPR) closing 14 Mar 95 with one he has included with his application.  We will address 
the supplemental promotion consideration issue should the request be approved. 

Reason for Request.  Applicant believes the contested report is unjust. 

Facts.  See AFPCDPPPAB Ltr. 

Discussion.  The first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was 
cycle 96E5 to staff sergeant (promotions effective Sep 96 - Aug 97 ).  Should the AFBCMR void 
the contested report in its entirety, upgrade the overall rating , or exchange the reports as 
requested, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental 
promotion consideration beginning with cycle 96E5.  The applicant will not become a selectee 
during this cycle if the AFBCMR grants the request.  The subject report will not be considered 
again in the promotion process until cycle 97E5.  Promotions for this cycle will be accomplished 
during the Aug 97 time frame. 

b 

Recommendation.  We defer to the recommendation of AFPCDPPPAB. 

Chief, InquiriedAFBCMR Section 
Airman Promotion Branch 

. 

a 

D E P A R T M E N T  OF THE A I R   F O R C E  

H E A D Q U A R T E R S   AIR  F O R C E   P E R S O N N E L  C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H  AIR  F O R C E  B A S E  T E X A S  

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPA 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX  78 150-47 10 

SUBJECT:  AFI 36-2603 Application-- 

JUN  2  0  fggt 

Requested Action.  The applicant requests correction of the 14 Mar 95 enlisted performance report 

(EPR) to reflect an overall rating of “5.”  (This is the applicant’s initial report.) 

Basis for R.equest. The applicant states the performance feedback he received during the rating 

period did not indicate there was any improvement needed. 

Recommendation.  Deny. 

Facts and Comments. 

a.  The application is timely filed.  A similar application was submitted under AFI 

36-240 1, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  The Evaluation Report Appeal Board was 
not convinced by the applicant’s documentation and denied the appeal.  A copy of HQ AFPCIDPPPAE’s 
decision letter, dated 10 Jul96, is attached for the AFBCMR’s review.  Another individual initially 
appealed under AFI 36-2603 on behalf of the applicant requesting the contested EPR be replaced with a 
reaccomplished version.  The application was returned to the applicant requesting that he submit a DD 
Form 149 with his signature.  Instead of replacing the EPR with a reaccomplished version, he is now 
requesting that the EPR be upgraded to a “5.”  We have attached a copy of the first DD Form 149 and 
attachments for the AFBCMR’s review. Even though we make mention of the reaccomplished report in 
this advisory, it is really irrelevant at this point since the applicant now desires to have the original report 
upgraded. 

b.  The governing directive is AFI 36-2403, Enlisted Evaluation System, 15 Jul94. 

c.  The contested EPR is an overall “4” with five of the seven performance factors in section 
I11 marked down one block to the left.  The reaccomplished version provided in the original appeal of the 
EPR is an overall “5” with two of the seven performance factors marked down one block to the left.  We 
note the evaluators’ comments on the proposed EPR have been completely reworded. 

d.  In support of his appeal (included with AFI 36-2401 appeal), the applicant provides a 
letter, dated 5 Jun 96, from the rater who states she was “not previously aware of events that he (the 
applicant) had accomplished, ..., until after the report was a matter of record and fellow supervisors had 
informed (her) of their exclusion.” The applicant now provides another letter, dated 5 Jun 97, from the 
rater in which she now states, “His exemplary performance is reflected in all of his Performance 
Feedback Sessions/Worksheets [PFW].  Lack of knowledge on my part in how to properly evaluate a 
person’s performance to determined a proper EPR rating led me to choose a rater lower than what (the 
appficant) should have received.”  However, as pointed out by HQ AFPCDPPPAE, the rater must have 

! I  

* 

been aware of the applicant’s career development course (CDC) performance since she would have been 
both his trainer and the one to initiate upgrade action following the CDC completion.  While the PFWs 
provided by the applicant have complimentary comments on them, we note that not one of them has 
markings to the far right in Section I11 which indicates to us that there was some room for improvement in 
the applicant’s performance.  Further, while we realize the promotion recommendation in section IV of 
the report is intended to compare the ratee with others of the same grade and similar duties, we note the 
markings on the front side in section I11 are commensurate with the promotion recommendation.  Even 
further, the indorser concurred and signed the report as rendered. 

e.  The applicant also included a letter, dated 13 Jun 96, from the indorser who cites several 
of the applicant’s accomplishments during the rating period.  Upon learning of the “EPR situation,” the 
indorser states he conducted a review of the past events and interviewed supervisors to ascertain the 
validity of the revisions on the contested EPR.  He now believes the reaccomplished EPR more accurately 
reflects the applicant’s accomplishments, and he supports the request for replacement. 

f.  Evaluation reports are considered accurate as written unless substantial evidence to the 
contrary is provided.  As such, they receive exhaustive reviews prior to becoming a matter of record. 
Any report can be rewritten to be more hard hitting, to provide embellishments, or enhance the ratee’s 
promotion potential.  But the time to do that is before the report becomes a matter of record.  None of the 
supporters of the applicant’s appeal explain how they were hindered from rendering a fair and accurate 
assessment of the applicant’s performance prior to the report being made a matter of record.  The appeals 
process does not exist to recreate history or enhance chances for promotion.  It appears this is exactly 
what the applicant is attempting to do--recreate history.  As such, we are not convinced the contested 
report is not accurate as written and do not support the request for removal and replacement. 

Summary.  Based on the evidence provided, we recommend denial. 

gOYCE E. HOGAN 
Acting Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch 
Directorate of Pers Program Mgt 

I)- 

* 

. 

‘

b