AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDJNGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 93-02092
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 8 March 1991 be
removed from his records.
He was put under another Staff Sergeant (SSgt) that he out ranked.
Race played an integral part in favoritism. The rater wrote EPRs
on the applicant and another individual who is African American, as
is the rater. The other individual was given a rr51r rating. His
(applicant's) performance was equal to, if not surpassing, compared
to the other individual.
His past performance reports should be looked at closely. He has
been unjustly accused of deteriorating work performance without any
substantiated evidence. He has received no letters of counseling
or reprimand, no training deficiencies and certainly no indication
of a lack of enthusiasm or commitment toward his military career.
In support of his request, applicant provided his personal
statement, copies of the contested report, an undated and unsigned
Performance Feedback Worksheet, five previous reports and one
subsequenb\report, five statements in his behalf from eo-workers,
three lettws of appreciation and three quality assurance
evaluatiQn/in?!p ion forms. His complete submission is at Exhibit
A.
/3
i
a
Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of Staff
Sergeant.
The contested report, rendered for the period 30 April 1990 through
8 March 1991, contained promotion recommendations of 11311
(Satisfactory Performer) .
Applicant’s APR/EPR profile follows:
13 Apr 78
13 Apr 7 9
4 Jul 80
4 Jul 8 1
15 Jun 82
15 Jun 83
15 Jun 84
15 Jun 85
1 5 Jun 86
1 5 Jun 87
15 Jun 88
15 Jun 89
29 Apr 90
8 Mar 9 1
8 Mar 92
3 1 Dec 92
2 2 Oct 93
#
*
6 (Referral)
7
8 (w/LOE)
8
6
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
5 (Exceptional Performer)
3 (Satisfactory Performer)
.5
5
4 (Excellent Performer)
# Rating is based on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being the highest)
* Contested report.
The Special Selection Boards (SSBs) and Board for Correction of
Military Records (BCMR) Appeals Section, Directorate of Personnel
Program Management, AFMPC/DPMAJAl, recommended denial stating an
evaluation report is considered to be a fair and accurate
assessment of a rateels duty performance at the time it is
rendered. The applicant has not provided any evidence to prove
otherwise.
Applicant’s claim that he was put under another SSgt, whom he
outranked, is without basis. A rater may be a Noncommissioned
Officer (NCO) serving in a grade equal to or higher than the ratee.
The applicant has not provided evidence to substantiate his
allegation that racial favoritism played a role in the rating he
received on the contested report.
In regard to applicant’s request that his past performance reports
be taken into consideration as indicators of his duty performance,
DPMAJAl stated a report is an evaluation based on the quality and
quantity of individual performance during a certain period.
Therefore, inconsistencies in reports, past or present, do not
invalidate any given report.
The complete DPMAJAl evaluation is at Exhibit C.
f
The Inquiries/Special Actions Unit, Promotion Management Section,
AFMPC/DPMAJW~, provided comments concerning supplemental promotion
consideration. Should the Board void the contested report in its
entirety or upgrade the overall rating, the applicant , provided he
is otherwise eligible, will be entitled to supplemental promotion
They noted that
consideration commencing with cycle 93A6.
applicant will not become a selectee for promotion during cycles
93A6 or 94A6 if the Board grants his request.
The complete
evaluation is at Exhibit D.
I
Copies of the Air Staff evaluations were forwarded to the applicant
on 13 August 1993 for review and comment within 30 days. As of
this date, no response has been received by this office.
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 probable error or injustice.
Applicant's supporting documents have been thoroughly reviewed.
However, we do not find these documents sufficiently persuasive to
override the rationale expressed by the Air Staff. By regulation,
evaluators are required to assess a ratee's performance, honestly
and to the best of their ability. We have reviewed the supportive
statements and the evidence provided by the applicant.
While
laudatory of the applicant's performance, they do not, in our
opinion, provide an adequate basis to support findings that the
evaluators were unable to render unbiased evaluations of the
applicant's performance or that the ratings on the contested report
were based on factors other than the applicant's duty performance
during the contested rating period. Applicant contends that he was
However ,
put under another Staff Sergeant whom he outranked.
assignments within an organization are at the discretion of the
officials in charge.
The applicant has not shown that the
assignment negatively influenced the contested report. In view of
the foregoing, we agree with the opinion of the Air Staff and adopt
their findings to support our conclusion that the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice and that there is no basis
upon which to recommend favorable action on his request to remove
the contested EPR from his records.
<
3
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of probable 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 this application in
Executive Session on 17 February 1994, under the provisions of AFR
31-3:
LeRoy T. Baseman, Panel Chairman
Thomas S. Markiewicz, Member
Karen Bingo, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Oct 92, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFMPC/DPMAJAl, dated 13 Jul 9 3 .
Exhibit D. Letter, AFMPC/DPMAJWl, dated 19 Jul 93.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR,
Panel Chairman
,
4
The applicant appealed the contested report closing 20 June 1991 under the provisions of AFI 36-2401 (formerly AFR 31-11) and the appeal was considered and denied by the Airman Personnel Records Review Board (APRRB). A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/Special Actions Section, AFMPC/DPMAJWl, also reviewed this application and states that the first time the contested report closing 2 0 Jun 91 was considered in the promotion process was cycle 93A6...
Regardless, at best, this would be an administrative error and not justification for voiding the report.” While the applicant contends that he was not given feedback during the contested reporting period, only members in the rating chain can confirm if counseling was provided. DPPPAB disagrees and states that AFR 39- 62 (paragraph 2-25) defines a referral report as an EPR with a rating in the far left block of any performance factor in Section III (Evaluation of Performance) and a rating of...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03455
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The contested EPR was a Change of Reporting Official (CRO) report covering 188 days of supervision for the period 3 April 2005 through 7 October 2005. To effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to hear from all members of the rating chain – not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation, and applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain on the contested...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03247
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-03247 INDEX CODE 111.02 111.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 28 Apr 01 through 25 Mar 02 be declared void and removed from his records [administratively accomplished]; his duty title be corrected to reflect “NCOIC, Evaluation...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that the contested report would normally have been eligible for promotion consideration for the 96E7 cycle to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 96 - Jul 97). Consequently, he was ineligible for promotion consideration for the 96B7 cycle based on both the referral EPR and the PES Code “Q”. Even if the board directs removal of the referral report, the applicant would not...
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, AFBCMR Appeals and SSB Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, states that the previous and subsequent EPRs that applicant submits are not germane to this appeal. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states, in summary, that the statements he submitted all agree that the contested report was not written accurately and did not include specific...
___________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01693
For airmen who meet eligibility requirements, the immediate supervisor recommends promotion on AF Form 224, Recommendation and Authorization for Promotion of Airman as Reserve of the Air Force. According to the 7 Apr 04 report, MSgt C was the rater and Chief A was the additional rater. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He should have received an initial and...
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. The applicant requests correction of the 14 Mar 95...
Per letter dated 3 March 1 9 9 7 , counsel requested the processing of the case be continued (Exhibit J) . DPMAJWl noted applicant's EPR closing 11 February 1993 (Not recommended for promotion at this has an overall rating of "2" time) (Exhibit H) The Senior Attorney-Advisor, AFPC/JA, reviewed this application and provided comments on issues raised by applicant's counsel with respect to due process and equity. Nor did we find any evidence that the applicant's rights were violated during...