AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  9 7 - 0 2 9 0 4  
COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

The  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR) rendered  for  the  period 
1 Dec 9 3   through 3 0   Nov 94  be declared void and removed from his 
records. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He  was  never  informed  of  the  perception  that  personal/family 
problems  had  distracted  him  from  his  duties  prior  to  the  EPR 
being accomplished.  Since the EPR was not referred, he was never 
given the opportunity to respond  to  the derogatory comments in 
Sections V  (Rater's Comments) and VI  (Rater's Rater's Comments). 
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided  a  copy of  the 
contested report and a statement from the rater with concurrence 
from his current commander. 

Applicant's  complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The  applicant's  Total  Active  Federal  Military  Service  Date 
(TAFMSD) is 8  Jun 7 9 .   He is currently serving in the Regular Air 
Force in the grade of master sergeant. 
Applicant's APR/EPR profile since 1 9 8 6   follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

8 May 86 
8  May 87 
8  May 88 
8  May 89 
8 May 90 
8 May 91 

9 
9 
9 
9 
4  (New rating system) 
5 

AFBCMR 97-02904 

8 May 92 
8  May 93 
30 Nov 93 
*  3 0   Nov 94 
30 Nov 95 
30 Nov 96 

*  Contested report. 

Two similar applications were submitted under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. 
The Evaluation Report Appeal Board  (ERAB) was not  convinced by 
the applicant’s documentation on either occasion and denied the 
appeals. 

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  9638  to  senior 
master sergeant  (promotions effective Apr 96  -  Mar  9 7 ) .  
Should 
the Board void  the report in its entirety, upgrade the overall 
rating, or make  any  other  significant  change, providing  he  is 
otherwise  eligible,  the  applicant  will  be  entitled  to 
supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 9638. 

A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C. 
The  Chief, BCMR  &  SSB  Section, AFPC/DPPPA,  also  reviewed  this 
application and indicated that the rater does not confirm or deny 
the  applicant  was  never  told  why  his  report  was  downgraded. 
Further,  the  rater  also  states  that  he  reevaluated  the 
circumstances  and  he  is  “now  convinced  that  an  injustice 
occurred.,,  The  rater  does  not,  however,  state  what  he  has 
learned  since  he  initially prepared  the  EPR  to  prompt  him  to 
change  his  mind.  What  DPPPA does not  understand  is  that  the 
rater supports removal of the report yet he also states that if 
he had the opportunity to rewrite the report, he would recommend 
an  overall  “ 5 / /   promotion  recommendation  and  the  ratings  in 
Section 111 (Evaluation of Performance) would change.  Instead of 
voiding the report, thereby removing all complimentary comments, 
why did he not request the ratings be changed? 

While  the  applicant’s current  commander, who  was  the  military 
personnel flight  (MPF) chief at the time the report was rendered 
concurs with the rater‘s reevaluation of the EPR,  this individual 
was not  in the applicant’s rating chain at  the  time.  Further, 
the  current commander added a  first  indorsement to  the  rater‘s 
letter  of  support  and  simply  states  that  he  concurs with  the 
rater’s request to void the applicant‘s EPR. 

2 

AFBCMR 97-02904 

DPPPA notes that there is no statement from the rater's  rater or 
the commander.  In order to successfully challenge the validity 
of an evaluation report, it is important to hear from all of the 
evaluators-not  necessarily  for  support,  but  at  least  for 
clarification/explanation.  Without benefit  of  a  statement from 
all  of  the  evaluators,  DPPPA  can  only  conclude  the  EPR  is 
accurate as written. 

While  the  applicant  contends  that  he  was  not  told,  either 
verbally or in writing, that he was being relieved as commandant 
due to personal/family problems, this statement is not convincing 
since it is unlikely anyone would be  relieved of  their position 
without some explanation.  The evaluators are not heard  from on 
this issue. 

DPPPA  further  states  that  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 to 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 
I  s  appeal explain how they were hindered from rendering 
applicant 
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  and  it appears this  is exactly what  the  applicant  is 
attempting  to  do-recreate  history. 
As  such,  DPPPA  is  not 
convinced  the  contested  report  is not  accurate  as  written  and 
they do not support the request for removal. 

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF A I R   FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  applicant  provided  a  two-page  statement  addressing  the 
comments by DPPPA. 

Applicant's  complete response is attached at Exhibit F. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 
2 .   The application was timely filed. 

3 

AFBCMR 97-02904 

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,  to  include  the  statement  from  the  rater  of  the 
contested report with the indorsement of the applicant's  current 
commander, we  are  not  persuaded  that  the  contested  EPR  is  an 
inaccurate  assessment  as  rendered.  His  contentions are  duly 
noted;  however,  we  do  not  find  these  assertions  sufficiently 
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. 
While  the  rater  states  that  the  evaluation  was  a  result  of 
misguided  command  pressure  and  not  a  true  reflection  of 
applicant's duty performance and promotion potential, there is no 
substantiation of this allegation from either the rater's  rater 
or the commander that there was pressure put on these individuals 
to downgrade the report in question.  We therefore agree with the 
recommendations  of  the  Air  Force  and  adopt  the  rationale 
expressed as the basis  for our decision that the applicant has 
failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error 
or  an  injustice.  Therefore,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to 
recommend granting the relief sought. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

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 23 June  1998, under the provisions  of Air 
Force Instruction 3 6 - 2 6 0 3 :  

Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair 
Mr. Allen Beckett, Member 
Mr. Dana J. Gilmour, Member 
Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote) 

4 

AFBCMR 97-02904 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Sep 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB,  dated 8 Oct  97. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 22 Oct 97. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR,  dated  10 Nov 97. 
Exhibit F.  Letter fr applicant, dated 17 Dec 97. 

WAYNE R. GRACIE 
Panel Chair 

5