DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 97-0 1292 

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 (70A 
Stat 116), it is directed that: 

The pertinent  military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to a, be corrected to show that: 

- 

a.  The Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 910, rendered for the period 27 June 

1992 through 26 June 1993, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records. 

b.  The attached Enlisted Performance Report, AF Form 9 10, rendered for the period 
27 June  1992 through 26 June  1993, reflecting a Promotion Recommendation of an overall “5,” 
be  amended  in  Section V,  Rater’s  Comments, to reflect a  date of “30 June  1993” rather than 
“15 April  1997;” and that  the  date in Section VI,  Indorser’s  Comments, be  amended  to  read 
“30 June  1993” rather  than  “15 April  1997;” and  that  the  amended report  be  inserted in  his 
records in the proper sequence. 

It is fix-ther directed that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the 

grade of technical sergeant (E-6) for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 95A6. 

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 applicant 

was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion 
and that applicant is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date. 

c/ Director 

U 

Air Force Review Boards Agency 

Attachment 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  9 7 - 0 1 2 9 2  
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

,BpR  2 3 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

The  Enlisted  Performance Report  (EPR), for  the  period  27 June 
1 9 9 2   through 2 6   June 1 9 9 3 ,   be declared void and substituted with 
a reaccomplished EPR for the same period. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
The duty performance and work accomplishments for 1 9 9 2   t o   1 9 9 3   do 
not  warrant  a  11411  rating  in  Section  IV 
(Promotion 
Recommendation).  The rater was  on temporary duty  travel  (TDY) 
during the rating period and was not fully aware of all the facts 
or accomplishments until after the EPR was written and processed. 
Due to  these  circumstances, the  rater feels a mistake  was made 
when a I14l1 rating was given.  The indorser was TDY at the time of 
the EPR writing and left instructions for the rating to be a lI5.l' 
The Commander indorsed the report only on the facts given him at 
that  time, which  were  not  all  inclusive  in the  bullets  of  the 
EPR. 

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a reaccomplished 
EPR  for the same period, a statement from the NCOIC, Production 
Control  who  indicates  he  supervised  the  applicant  during 
1 January  through  1 June  1993, and  statements  from  the  rating 
chain officials. 

Applicant's submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Applicant  is currently serving  in the  Regular Air  Force  in the 
grade of staff sergeant  (E-5). 

Applicant submitted a similar appeal under AFI  36-2401 which was 
denied on 31 January 1997 by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board 
(ERAB). 
T h e   ERAB  was  not  convinced  by  the  applicant's 
documentation. 

Applicant's EPR profile is as follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

26 Jun 90 
26 Jun 91 
26 Jun 92 
*  26 Jun 93 
26 Jun 94 
26 Jun 95 
26 Jun 96 
26 Jun 97 

*  Contested report 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Airman Promotion Branch, HQ 
AFPC/DPPPWB, states that the first time the contested report was 
considered in the promotion process was Cycle  95A6 to technical 
sergeant  (promotions effective  Aug  94  -  Jul  95).  Should  the 
AFBCMR  void  the  contested  report  in  its  entirety, upgrade  the 
overall rating, or substitute the report as requested, providing 
he  is  otherwise  eligible,  applicant  will  be  entitled  to 
supplemental promotion consideration beginning  with  cycle  95A6. 
However, he  would  not  become  a  selectee during  cycles  95A6  or 
9536.  He would become a selectee during the cycle 9636 pending 
favorable  data  verification  and  the  recommendation  of  the 
commander. 

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.  It is accepted that performance and 
promotion potential can change over time. 

only 

for 

but 

the 

Air  Force  policy  is  that  an  evaluation  report  is  accurate  as 
written  when  it  becomes  a  matter  of  record.  To  effectively 
challenge an  EPR, it  is  important  to  hear  from  the  evaluators 
report--not 
from 
for 
The  rater  states  he  originally 
clarification/expianation. 
accomplished the EPR as a I 1 4 . l 1   He further states he has learned 
additional  details  concerning  the  applicant's performance, and 
desires to  revise  the  narrative  and  upgrade  the  ratings on the 
contested report.  He states a  "high operational tempo1' did not 
allow him  to  reaccomplish the  report prior  to  the date  of  this 
appeal. 
The  indorser  states  he  concurred  with  a  proposed 
narrative and "directedii the report be assigned an overall rating 
of  "5.  He now believes his written  instructions directing the 
rater to assign a  I15l1 must  have  been  "misplaced.  He  does not 

support, 

address the fact that it is not within his discretion to "direct" 
the rater to assign anything. 

The  reviewing commander states that  he  supported the  report as 
(originally)  written  because  both  the  rater  and  evaluator 
(indorser) concurred with the ratings annotated.  The reviewing 
commander  does  not  address  any  misplaced  instructions  or 
miscommunications between the rater and indorser.  He states both 
the rater and indorser had  initialed the report as written when 
he  (commander) received  it  for  final  review.  The  reviewing 
commander  goes  on  to  say  he  has  observed  the  applicant's 
performance  since June  1993  and  identified him  as a productive 
and enthusiastic NCO,  "who possibly  could have  deserved  a  five 
rating on the June 1993 report."  They stress that an evaluation 
report  is  a  depiction of  performance  and  potential  during  the 
specific  period  of  that  report.  Subsequent  performance  at  a 
higher  degree  of  proficiency  has  no  bearing  on  the  previous 
report's accuracy. 

The explanations from the rater, indorser and commander for the 
requested  replacement  EPR  do  not  correspond  to  one  another. 
Nowhere  does  anyone attempt  to explain  how  the  original  report 
was signed by the indorser with an overall  r 1 4 1 1  rating.  Further, 
when first appealed, the proposed replacement report had a change 
of  ratings  only--no  change  in  narrative.  The  latest  proposed 
replacement  report  contains  both  upgraded  ratings  and  revised 
narratives.  The  conflicting  explanations, various  versions  of 
the  contested  report, and  untimeliness  of  the  appeal  create  a 
credibility deficit.  They are provided no evidence the original 
EPR is in error or is the product of impropriety.  They recommend 
the appeal be denied. 

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  accomplishments.  He  states  that 
getting  all  the  party's correspondence  letters  together  seemed 
like an endless  task.  This  is  the  only  reason why  the  appeal 
took  so long to formulate.  Applicant  states that he was  judged 
hastily before  all  the  facts and accomplishments were proven  to 
the evaluators.  The evaluators would like to see this injustice 
rectified  and  a  true  word  picture  of  his  (applicant's) 
performance during the specified period be put into his permanent 
record. 

A copy of the applicant's response is attached at Exhibit F. 

3 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law 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  evidence  of  record and  the  supporting statements 
from the rating officials, we  believe there  is sufficient doubt 
as to the accuracy of the EPR in question.  The NCOIC, Production 
Control states that he was the applicant's immediate supervisor 
and  the  applicant directly worked  for him  during  the reporting 
period of the EPR in question.  Also, at the time, the rater was 
the only technical sergeant in the AGE shop not reporting on any 
individual  and  upper  management  felt  that  he  needed  the 
experience  on  writing  EPRs  and  assigned  the  applicant  as  his 
candidate.  The rater states that there were  significant events 
that should be  recorded in the applicant's contested report and 
that the report was written as a " 4 "   only because he  (rater) was 
not fully aware of all of applicant's accomplishments during the 
reporting period.  The indorser states that when he indorsed the 
verbiage  in  Section  VI,  he  (indorser) was  on  temporary  duty 
travel  (TDY) ,  as he  was  for most  of  applicant's rating period. 
He also states that he believed the applicant's accomplishments 
warranted an overall rating of  ' ' 5 "   and left specific instructions 
for that to happen.  Somehow through the rater's TDY commitments 
and  the  fact  of  being  on  opposite  shifts  from  the  applicant, 
communication lines were crossed and the message was lost.  The 
reviewer states that when he signed the EPR  in  uestion, he was 

newly  assigned  as  the  commander  of  the & Maintenance 

Squadron.  He  supported the  report as written because both the 
rater  and  indorser  concurred  with  the  ratings  annotated. 
Although he o n l y   knew the applicant for one month when he signed 
the EPR in question, he feels the applicant has proven to be one 
of his best NCOs who possibly could have deserved a 11511 rating on 
the contested report.  Based on the statements provided, and the 
fact that the rater was unfamiliar with writing E P R s   and he and 
the  indorser  were  TDY  for  a  period  of  time  of  the  reporting 
period,  we  believe  the  contested  report  is  not  an  accurate 
assessment  of  the  applicant's  performance. 
Theref ore ,  we 
recommend the contested report be declared void and replaced with 
the  reaccomplished EPR  for  the  same period.  In  addition, the 
applicant  should  be  considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of 
technical  sergeant  by  all  appropriate  cycles  in  which  the 
contested report was a matter of record. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that: 

4 

a.  The  Enlisted  Performance Report, AF  Form  910,  rendered 
for  the  period  27 June  1992  through  26  June  1993,  be  declared 
void and removed from his records. 

b.  The  attached  Enlisted  Performance Report, AF  Form  910, 
rendered  for  the  period  27 June  1992  through  26 June  1993, 
reflecting  a  Promotion  Recommendation  of  an  overall  ''5",  be 
amended  in  Section V,  Rater's Comments, to  reflect  a  date  of 
" 3 0   June 1993" rather than "15 April 1997;" and that the date in 
Section  VI,  Indorser's Comments,  be  amended  to  read  "30 June 
1993" rather than "15 April 1997;" and that the amended report be 
inserted in his records in the proper sequence. 

It  is  further  recommended  that  he  be  provided  supplemental 
consideration for promotion to  the  grade of  technical  sergeant 
( E - 6 )   for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 95A6. 
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 applicant 
was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established 
by  the  supplemental promotion and that applicant is entitled to 
all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 29 January 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603 : 

Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair 
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member 
Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member 

5 

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

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Apr 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 30 Apr 97. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 16 May 97. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Jun 97. 
Exhibit F.  Applicant's Letter, dated 9 Jun 97. 

ECK 

6 

. 

* 

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

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 AFPCDPPPAB 

AFBCMR 
IN TURN 

FROM:  HQ AFPC/DPPPWB 

550 C Street West, Ste 8 
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-471 1 

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Mi itary Records 

Requested Action.  The applicant is requesting the AFBCMR replace his Enlisted Performance 
Report (EPR) closing 26 Jun 93 with the 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 so is requesting the 
reaccomplished report be made a matter of record. 

Facts.  See AFPCDPPPAB Ltr. 

Discussion.  The first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was 
Cycle 95A6  to technical sergeant (promotions effective Aug 94 - Jul95).  Should the AFBCMR 
void the contested report in its entirety, upgrade the overall rating, or substitute the report as 
requested, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental 
promotion consideration beginning with cycle 95A6.  The applicant will not become a select 
during cycles 95A6 or 95E6 if the AFBCMR voids the report but would become a select during' 
cycle 96E6 pending a favorable data verification and the recommendation of the commander. 

Recommendation.  We defer to the recommendation of AFPCDPPPAB. 

TONY R. ME-kRITT  ' 
Chief, InquiriedAFBCMR Section 
Airman Promotion Branch 

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

H E A D Q U A R T E R S  A I R   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   A I R   F O R C E   B A S E  T E X A S  

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPC/DPPPAB 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX 78150-4710 

B 

U.S. AIR FORCE 

! 
1 9 4 7 -  1 9 9 7  

~ 

4:sMBy  1991 

-

.

 

ea yested Act ion.  Applicant requests the enlisted performance report (EPR) that closed 

out on 26 Jun 93 be replaced with an upgraded and revised report. 

asis for Request.  Applicant states the report was an inaccurate reflection of his 

performance during the contested rating period.  He believes the rater was unaware of pertinent 
performance information wherrhe miginally accomplished the EPR. -  -  - ---- -----  - - - 

~ 

ecommendation.  Deny. 

Facts and Comments; 

a.  Application is not timely.  Applicant submitted an appeal under AFI 36-2401, 
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was denied by the Evaluation Report 
Appeal Board (EM). A copy of the letter announcing the ERAB’s decision is included in the 
applicant’s appeal package.  We realize the AFBCMR has determined it will consider this case 
on its merit in accordance with Detweiler vs. Pena. 

b.  AFR 39-62, The Enlisted Evaluation System, 1 May 89, is the governing 

directive. 

c.  Regarding the untimeliness of this appeal, the applicant does not provide a 
reasonable explanation for having waited over three years to appeal the contested report.  He 
states in his 23 Sep 96 letter that he was on temporary duty (TDY) for 450 days in the past three 
years, precluding him fiom pursuing this appeal.  On his 21 Apr 97 DD Form 149, he states he 
was TDY for 550 days.  Regardless, TDY commitments are very common in the Air Force, and 
the applicant’s situation is not uncommon.  He provides no evidence he was tasked to such a 
degree that it prevented him fiom filing in a timely manner. 

d.  In support of his appeal, the applicant submits previous and subsequent EPRs, 
letters fiom the evaluators on the contested report, a personal brief, and letters from outside the 
rating chain.  Previous and subsequent EPRs are not germane to this appeal.  It is accepted that 

4 

c 

c 

performance and promotion potential can change over time.  For this reason, EPRs are intended 
to reflect performance and potential for a specific period of time. 

e.  Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it 

becomes a matter of record.  It takes substantial evidence to the contrary to have a report changed 
or voided.  To effectively challenge an EPR, it is important to hear fiom the evaluators fiom the 
report--not only for support, but for clarificatiodexplanation. The applicant has provided two 
statements ftom the rater, two statements from the indorser, and one statement fiom the 
reviewing commander on the contested report.  The rates states he originally accomplished the 
EPR as a “4.”  He further states he has learned additional details concerning the applicant’s 
performance, and desires to revise the narrative and upgrade the ratings on the contested report. 
Last, the rater states a “high operational tempo” did not allow him to reaccomplish the report 
prior to the date of this appeal.  The indorser states he concurred with a proposed narrative and 
“directed” the report be assigned an overall rating of “5.”  He now believes his written 
instructions directing the rater to assign a “5”  must have been “misplaced.”  He does not address 
. the fact that it is not within his discretion to “direct” the rater to assign anything. 

f.  The reviewing commander states “I supported the report as (originally) written 

because both the rater and evaluator (indorser) concurred with the ratings-smnotatedl” The 
reviewing commander does not address any misplaced instructions or miscommunications 
between the rater and indorser.  He states both the rater and indorser had initialed the report, as 
written, when he received it for final review.  The reviewing commander goes on to say he has 
observed the applicant’s performance since Jun 93 and identified him as a productive and 
enthusiastic NCO, “who possibly (emphasis added) could have deserved a five rating on the Jun 
93 report.”  We stress that an evaluation report is a depiction of performance and potential during 
the specific period of that report.  Subsequent performance at a higher degree of proficiency has 
no bearing on the previous report’s accuracy. 

g.  The explanations fiom the rater, indorser, and commander for the requested 

replacement EPR do not correspond to one another.  Nowhere in this appeal package does 
anyone attempt to explain how the original report was signed by the indorser with an overall “4” 
rating.  Further, when first appealed, the proposed replacement report had a change of ratings 
only--no change in narrative.  The latest proposed replacement report contains both upgraded 
ratings & revised narratives. 

7 

I 

c 

Summary.  The conflicting explanations, various versions of the contested report, and 

untimeliness of this appeal create a credibility deficit.  We are provided no evidence the original 
EPR is in error or is the product of impropriety.  In the absence of error or injustice, we must 
assume it is accurate as originally written.  We strongly recommend denial of the applicant's 

request to replace the 26 Jun 93 EPR.  &.-".t".- 

OYCE E. HOGAN 
Chief, BCMR Appeals and SSB Section 
Dir of Personnel Program Mgt