- 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-01810 

COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  No 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

The  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR) rendered  for  the  period 
5 Dec 92 through 4 Dec 93 be declared void and removed from his 
records. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
The contested report which  contains a “3“  rating does not exist 
and the “3“  rating maintained in the Military Personnel Flight’s 
(MPFs) computer  system  for military  records is an error  and  an 
in just ice 
promotion 
ability/ranking. 
He  was  not  supervised  by  anyone  for  the 
necessary 120 days during the contested rating period to warrant 
the  EPR.  He  was  unaware  the  EPR  existed  until  reviewing his 
Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) score in 1996, 
Applicant‘s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A, 

performance 

his 

history 

and 

to 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The  applicant’s  Total  Active  Federal  Military  Service  Date 
(TAFMSD) is  17 Jan  84.  He  is currently serving in the Regular 
and with a 
Air  Force in the grade of staff sergeant, 
date of rank  (DOR) of 1 Sep 91. 

effective, 

Applicant’s Airman Performance Report  (APR)/EPR profile follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUAT I ON 

8 Nov 84 
8 Nov 85 
29 May 8 6  
9 Feb 87 
9  Feb 88 
9 Feb 89 

4 Dec 89 
4 Dec 90 
4 Dec 91 
4 Dec 92 
*  4 Dec 93 
4 Dec 94 
4 Dec 95 

*  Contested report. 

AFBCMR 97-01810 

5  (New rating system) 
4 
5 
5 
3  (Supplemental Eva1 Sheet) 
5 
5 

An Air Force Form 77 (Supplemental Evaluation Sheet), dated 3 Sep 
96, indicates that the  Personnel Data System  (PDS) contained an 
overall rating of "3"  for the missing EPR  closing 4 Dec  93 and 
that  the  MPF  would  not  change  the  rating  and  date  unless 
documentary evidence to support a change became available or AFI 
36-2403 or AFI 36-2401 authorized such action. 

On 14 Nov  96, a similar appeal was considered and denied by the 
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board  (ERAB).  The ERAE3 recommended the 
applicant provide statements to strengthen his case from members 
of the rating chain which would provide clear evidence of error 
or injustice . 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed  this 
application  and  indicated  that  the  first  time  the  report  was 
considered in the promotion process was  cycle 95A6 to  technical 
sergeant  (promotions effective Aug  94 -  Jul  95).  Should  the 
Board  void  the  report  in  its  entirety  or  upgrade  the  overall 
rating, providing he is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be 
entitled  to  supplemental promotion  consideration beginning  with 
cycle 95A6.  He will not become a selectee during cycles 95A6 or 
95E6 if the Board grants the request but would become a selectee 
for  the  9636  cycle  pending  a  favorable  data  verification  and 
recommendation of the commander. 

A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C. 
The  Chief,  BCMR  &  SSB  Section, AFPC/DPPPAB,  also  reviewed  this 
application  and  indicated  that  Air  Force  policy  is  that  an 
evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter 
of  record  and  it  takes  substantial evidence  to  the  contrary  to 
have  a  report  changed  or  voided.  To  effectively  challenge  an 
EPR,  it  is  important to  hear  from all  the  evaluators  from  the 
report-not  only  for  support  but  for  clarification/explanation. 
The  applicant  has  failed  to  provide  letters  of  support  from 
anyone  in  the  rating  chain  of  the  contested  report. 
In  the 
absence  of  evidence  from  the  rating  chain,  official 
substantiation from the Inspector General  (IG) is appropriate but 

2 

AFBCMR 97-01810 

not provided in this case.  The physical absence of the contested 
EPR  in the  applicant’s unit personnel  record group  (UPRG) does 
not invalidate the assigned rating in the PDS. 
Information from 
someone stating they did/did not write  an EPR  on  the applicant 
during  the  contested  rating  period  would  help  evaluate  his 
request.  In the absence of such information, DPPPAB recommends 
denial of applicant’s request . 
DPPPAB  further indicated that  they attempted to  locate  someone 
who would know who rated the applicant during the period of the 
contested report but were unsuccessful.  They encourage applicant 
to  obtain  statements  from  supervisors/raters during  the  period 
attesting to  whether  or  not  they  rendered or  did  not  render  a 
report.  Also,  official  documentation assigning someone as  his 
rater  during  this  period  which  proves  his  contentions  that 
“supervision  during  this  period  did  not  meet  the  120-day 
requirement at any one time” would  strengthen his case.  Should 
additional documentation be  furnished by  the  applicant,  DPPPAB 
requests  the  opportunity  to  review  it  and  provide  additional 
comments.  They will contact the applicant’s MPF to ensure an AF 
Form 77 has been accomplished to take the place of the contested 
report in the applicant’s UPRG. 
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  applicant  reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluations  and  provided 
three letters of support  from some of the  leadership associated 
with his duty performance during the time in question.  He does 
not  know  who  wrote  the  EPR  since  no  one  met  the  minimum 
supervisory  time  requirements.  Additionally,  some  individuals 
that held leadership positions during the period in question have 
retired or changed stations; therefore, he was unable to contact 
these individuals to solicit supportive statements. 

Applicant‘s  complete response, with  attachments,  is  attached at 
Exhibit F. 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  Chief,  BCMR  &  SSB  Section,  AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  the 
additional documentation provided by the applicant and indicated 
that it is not feasible to compare one report covering a certain 
period of time with another report covering a different period of 
time.  This does not allow for changes in the ratee‘s performance 
and does not  follow the  intent of the governing regulation, AFR 
36-89,  Enlisted  Evaluation  System. 
The  EPR  was  designed  to 
provide  a  rating  for  a  specific  period  of  time  based  on  the 

3 

c 

AFE3CMR 97-01810 

performance  noted  during  that  period  not  based  on  previous 
performance.  The  applicant has  only  provided  statements  that 
attest to his character and these statements do not prove there 
was no report ever written for the contested time period.  They 
stand by their original recommendation of denial, 
A  complete  copy  of  the  additional  Air  Force  evaluation  is 
attached at Exhibit G. 

APPLICANT'S  REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  applicant  reviewed  the  additional Air  Force  evaluation  and 
points out that his travel orders reflect that he was assigned to 
the  86th  SPS/SPOS-A  therefore  verifying  his  assignment  to 
"Security "A" Flight" and verifying the Flight Sergeant's  letter 
stating his  (applicant's)  position and that he did  in fact work 
for the Flight Sergeant.  The fact remains that there is no hard 
evidence  that  the  EPR  in  question  ever  existed. 
There  are 
obvious errors  that have  occurred and  could occur  on behalf  of 
the  servicing MPF with  regard  to  inputting  and 
filing members' 
EPRs  into their personnel  file and the computer 
system used  for 
personnel filing.  Therefore, he cannot see how 
the Board could 
not rule in his favor. 

Applicant's  complete response, with  attachments, 
Exhibit I. 

is  attached  at 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all-  remedies  provided  by 
existing 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 applicant's  submission and the Air Force responses, 
we  conclude  that  not  only  was  there  considerable  confusion 
regarding who authored the contested report, but also, there was 
confusion in  the maintenance  of  the  applicant's  personnel  file 
and  the  computer  system  used  for  personnel  filing.  There  is 
doubt  as  to what  happened and what  should have happened  and we 
believe  this  should be  resolved in favor of  the applicant.  In 
reaching our conclusion, we note that there is no evidence that 
the  EPR  in  question  existed.  While  the  Air  Force  takes  the 
position  that  an EPR  is  accurate as  written  when  it becomes  a 
matter  of  record,  there  is significant doubt  as  to  what  really 
happened  in  this  case. 
Apparently  no  one  knows  for  sure. 
Therefore,  in  an  effort  to  preclude  any  possibility  of  an 

4 

c 

AFBCMR 97-01810 

injustice, the  Board  finds  in  applicant's  favor  and  recommends 
that the EPR  in question reflected on AF Form 77, dated 3 Sep 96, 
be  declared void  and  removed from his  record.  Furthermore, we 
recommend  that  his  corrected  record  be  provided  supplemental 
promotion  consideration  to  the  grade  of  technical  sergeant 
commencing with cycle 95A6. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department.of the Air Force 
relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  AF  Form  77 
(Supplemental Evaluation Sheet), dated 3 Sep 96, rendered for the 
period  5 Dec  92 through  4 Dec  93 be  declared  void  and  removed 
from his records. 

It  is  further  recommended  that  he  be  provided  supplemental 
consideration for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  technical  sergeant 
for all appropriate cycles commencing 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  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 . 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 23 July  1998, under  the  provisions  of AFI 
36-2603: 

Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Ch9ir 
Mr. Robert W.  Zook, Member 

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

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Jul 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

1 

5 

AFBCMR 97-01810 

Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 Jun 97. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 7 Aug 97. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Aug 97. 
Exhibit F.  Letter fr applicant, dated 17 Sep 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit G .   Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 11 Dec 97. 
Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Apr 98. 
Exhibit I .   Letter fr applicant, dated 17 May 98, w/atchs. 

&THA 
MFlUST 
Panel Chair 

6 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 
AF'BCMR  97-0 18 10 

AUG 1 4  7998 

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: 

records of the Department of the Air Force relating t 
corrected to show that AF Form 77 (Supplemental E
red for the period 5 December 1992 through 4 December 1993 be, 

v

and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records. 

- 

p

 

It is krther directed that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the 

grade of technical sergeant for all appropriate cycles commencing 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 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. 

k i i  

Director 

v  Air Force Review Boards Agency