. 

AIR  FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

JUN  2 9  W 

LE THE  MATTER. OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER: 9'7 - O M 4 0  
29'3JSEL :  None 
HEARING DESTKED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS T H a :  

i .   The  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR)  for  the  period 
30 January  1955  through  18  October  1995  be  replaced  with  a 
reaccomplished  report covering  the  same period  but  reflecting an 
cverall rating of  I'!I.I' 
2 .   His reenlistment eligibility  (RE) code on his DII  Form  214 .be 
changed. 

i n   his  l e t t e r   t o   his  S e n a t o r ,  
[Based  37i  some  of  the  comments 
t o   t h e   grade  of 
a p p l i c a n t   may  a l s o   want  r e t r o a c t i v e   p r o m o t i o n  
s t a f f   s e r g e a n t   and  r e i n s t a t e m e n t   3n a c t i v e   d u t y   w i t h   no b r e a k   i n  
s e r v i c e ]  . 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

No  written  feedback  was  ever-  given.  Verbal  feedback  wzls 
misleading  and  the  session was  not  conducted  on 6  February  1995 
as indicated on the E P R .   The report also does not include current 
work  accomplishments but  lists false work  statements. An overall 
rating of  " 5 "  would have  easily resulted in his making  technical 
sergeant, which would have allowed nim to continue his career. 

In  support,  applicant  provides,  ir- part,  a  reaccomplished  E P K ,  
his  similar appeals  submitted  under AFI  36-  2401, and  statements 
from the contested  report s indorser and commander. His complete 
submission is at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF- FACTS : 
Applicant  was  honorably  released  in  the  grade  of  sergeant  from 
active  duty  due  to  reduction  in  force  on  24  September  1956  arid 
transferred  to the Air Force Reserves, where  he  currently serves 
in the grade of  staff  sergeant  (date of  rank: 1 Jan 97)  He has 
an RE code of  !'4D1' (Grade i s  senior  a i r r n a n / s e r g e a n t ,   c o m p l e t e d   a t  
l e a s t   9  b u t   less  t h a n   16 y e a r s   of  totad.  a c t i v e   Federal  m i l i t a r y  
s e r v i c e ,   and  h a s   not  been  s e l e c t e d  
f o r   p r o m o t i o n   to  s t a f f  
s e r g e a n t ) .   He  had  9  years,  11  months  and  8  days  of  active 
service. 

Applicant  submitted  two  similar  appeals  on  the  contesEed  EPR 
under  AFI  3.5-2401. The  first  appeal  was  returned without  action 
to  allow  h:rn  the opportunity  to  sbtain an acceptable  substitute 
report  or  modify  his  request  T h e   applicant  resubmitted  the 
appezll  and  it  was  subsequently  der,ied by  the  Evaluation  R z p o r t  
Appeal Board  (ERAB). 

HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB informally advised -,he AFBCMR Staff that the first 
time the report was considered  in t h e   promotion process was cycle 
9 6 E 5   to  staff  sergeant.  Should  the  Board  void  or  upgraae  the 
report 
applicant  would  be  entitlt3d  to  supplemental  proricticn 
consideration. However, he would  nat become a selectee unless the 
contested EPR  is upgraded  to  a  "5.'' If promoted, the  effective 
date and date of  rank would be  1 September 1 9 9 6 .  

I 

AIR FORCE  EVALUATION: 

The  Chief,  BCMR  &  SSB  Secti:;n,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPAB,  reviewed  this 
appeal  and  states  that  the  letter  from  the  rater's rater  [sic] 
merely states the applicant did not  receive either  an initial or 
midterm  feedback session. Lack  of  feedback does not  invalidate a 
report.  While  current  Air  Force  policy  requires  performance 
feedback for personnel  a direct  correlation between  information 
provided  during  feedback  sessions  and  the  assessments  on 
evaluation  reports  does  not  necessarily  exist.  For example, if 
after a positive feedback session, an evaluator discovers serious 
problems,  he/she  must  record  the  problems  in  the  evaluation 
report  even  when  it  disagrees  with  the  previous  feedback.  The 
applicant claims the rater had verbally attested he would give an 
overall  " 5 "   rating  at  the  initial  feedback  session  conducted 
telephonically.  Since  the  rater  is  not  heard  f r o m ,   one  must 
assume  a  problem  occurred  and,  due  to  the  number  of  days  the 
applicant  was  away  from  his  primary  duty  station, there  was  nu 
opportunity  for  the  rater  to  provide  the  applicant  written 
feedback  before  the  report  closed out  and  the  rater rendered  an 
overall rating of  ' ' 4 "   vice  "5.Il  Applicant  has failed to provide 
anything specific to prove  he  received anything less than a fair 
ana  accurately  written  evaluation.  The  author  has  labeled  the 
various versions of the contested report and AF Form 77s provided 
by  the appl-icant and has attached a copy of  the original report, 
which the applicant did not provide.  Denial is recommended. 

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

The  Special  Programs  &  BCMR  Manager., HQ  AFPC/DPPAES 
the case and states that the RE code is correct. 

I 

evalua-t ed 

k  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit B .  

2 

97-02840 

APPLICANT'S EiEVIEW OF AIR FORCE  EVALUATION: 

Complete  copies  of  the  evaluacions  were  forwdrdea  to  t h e  
applicant  GIZ  1 1   November  19g77 for  review and  commenr  within  30 
days.  As  ot  this  date, no  response  has  been  received  by  this 
office, 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1.  The applicant has exhausted slI remedies provided by exisring 
law or r-egulations 

~ 

2 

The application was t.imely flied. 

3 .   Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. After a 
thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant's 
submission, we are not persuaded  that the contested EPR should be 
replaced  or  that  his  RE  code  should  be  changed.  Applicant's 
contentions  and  the  supporting  statements  are  duly  noted. 
However, we  do not  find  these assertions, in and  by  themselves, 
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the 
Air  Force.  Neither  the  applicant  nor  the  evaluators  have 
submitted persuasive  evidence  specifically  demonstrating why  the 
contested  report  is  in  error.  The  documentation  provided  does 
not  reveal what  the indorser and the commander know now that was 
not  available  for  their  consideration  when  the  EPR  was  first 
rendered.  Most  significantly, the  rater provides no explanation 
for  why  he  is  now  willing  to  upgrade  his  original  evaluation. 
Finally,  failure  to  conduct  a  z-equired or  requested  feedback 
session  does  not,  by  itself,  invalidate  an  EPR.  As  f o r  
applicant's R E  code, since  it  is  a  fact  that  he  had  at  least  3 
but  less than 16 years of active sexvice and had not yet attained 
the  grade  of  staff  sergeant,  we  find  no  e r r o r   warranting 
correction.  Inasmuch  as  we  have  concluded  that  applicant's 
records are not  in error, we find no basis for reinstating him tc 
active  duty  and  promoting  h i m   to  staff  sergeant.  We  therefore 
agree  with  the  recommendations  of  zhe  Air- Force  dnd  adopt  the 
rationale  expressed  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the 
applicant  has  failed to sustain h i s   burden  that  he  has  suffered 
either an error or an injustice. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  preser1te.d  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  material  error  01- 
injustice;  that  the  application  was  denied  without  a  personal 

3 

97-02840 

appearance;  and  that  the  application will  only  be  reconsidered 
upon  the  s-hmission of  newly  discovered  relevant  evidence  not 
c o n s i  dered with this application. 

T h e   followiny members of the Board consi.dered this application 1-12 
Executive  Session  on  11 June  1938, under  the  provisions  of  AFT 
36 2603. 

Mr. Thomas S ,  Markiewicz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Robert W ,  Zook, Member 
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, M e m b e r  

T h e   following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit 
Exhibf t 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 

A.  DD Form  149, dated 28 Aug  97, w/atchs. 
B ,   Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
C .   Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 28 O c t   97, 
D .   Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAES, dated 28 Oct 97. 
E ,   Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Nov  97. 

w/atch. 

HOMAS S .  PIARKIEWICZ 

'  Panel Chai-r 

97-02840