AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

SEP  1 8  

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03510  . 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

I. 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

His Enlisted  Performance Report  (EPR), rendered  for the period 
16 May  1993  through  15  May  1994,  be  declared void  and  removed 
from his records. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The contested report is an inaccurate account of his performance 
because  the  rater  did  not  gather  input  from  other  sources 
pertaining to his duty performance.  The rater did not deduct the 
time  he  (rater) was  assigned  temporary  duty  (TDY) from  the 
reporting  period  and  the  rater  did  not  conduct  an  initial 
feedback session during the reporting period.  The indorser did 
not have sufficient knowledge of his duty performance to properly 
evaluate him.  The report is inconsistent when  compared to his 
other EPRs. 
In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  submits  a  personal 
statement,  copies  of  his  AFI  36-2401  applications,  with 
statements  from  the  rater  and  former  squadron  commander, the 
contested EPR and additional documents associated with the issues 
These  documen_ts are  appended  at 
cited  in  his  contentions. 
Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Information  extracted  from  the  Personnel  Data  System  (PDS) 
indicates that the applicant contracted his initial enlistment in 
the Regular Air Force on 23 June 1981.  He has been progressively 
promoted  to the grade  of  technical sergeant, effective 1 March 
1992.  The following is a resume of his EPR ratings subsequent-to 
his promotion to that grade. 

Period Endinq 

15 May 92 
15 May 93 

Evaluation 
5 -  Ready for Immediate Promotion 
5 

*  15 May 94 
15 May 95 
15 May 96 
15 May 97 

4 -  Ready for Promotion 
5 
5 
5 

*  Contested report 
Similar  appeals  by  the  applicant, under  Air  Force  Instruction 
(AFI) 36-2401,  were  considered  and  denied  by  the  Evaluation 
Report Appeal Board  (ERAB) on 27 May 1997 and 23 March 1995. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  Airman  Promotion  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB,  stated  that  the 
first time the contested report was considered in the promotion 
process  was  Cycle  9537  to  master  sergeant  (E-71, promotions 
effective Aug  95 -  Jul 96.  Should the Board void the report in 
its entirety, providing he  is otherwise eligible, the applicant 
will  be  entitled  to  supplemental  promotion  consideration 
commencing with Cycle 9537.  It is noted that the applicant will 
not become a selectee for promotion during cycles 9537, 9637 or 
9737 if  the Board grants his request.  Thus, it would  serve no 
useful  purpose  to  provide  him  supplemental  consideration  for 
these cycles.  They defer to the recommendation of HQ AFPC/DPPPAB 
(Exhibit C) . 
The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, 
reviewed this application and recommended denial.  DPPPAB stated 
that the applicant did not  submit documentation to validate his 
contention  that  the  rater  did  not  have  the  120  days  of 
supervision required  to write  an evaluation.  DPPPAB noted  the 
applicant was previously  informed that  the safety schedules are 
not official documents to confirm the absence of the rater.  The 
rater's letter does not substantiate the claim concerning the TDY 
issue.  The  applicant  further  asserted  tbat  he  was  also  TDY 
during  the  reporting  period. 
DPPPAB  indicated  that  had  the 
applicant been assigned elsewhere for a sufficient time period, a 
Letter  of  Evaluation would  have  been  written  to  evaluate  the 
applicant's performance  for  use  by  the  rater  in  creating  the 
applicant's EPR.  DPPPAB stated that while Air Force policy does 
charge a rater to get meaningful  information from the ratee and 
as many sources as possible, it is his ultimate responsibility to 
determine  which  accomplishments  are  included  on  the  EPR  and 
whether  or  not  it  is  necessary  for  him  to  gather  additional 
information from  other  sources  in  order  to  render an  accurate 
assessment of  the  individual.  With  regard to the  indorser' not 
having first-have knowledge of the applicant's duty performance, 
DPPPAB stated that the short length of time the indorser was in 
the  role before  the closeout date  is not  an  issue.  Air  Force 
policy allows evaluators, other than the rater, to be assigned at 
any point.  As  to  the  allegation that  he  was  not  rendered  an 
initial  performance  feedback, the  governing  instruction  states 

2 '  

97-03510 

that  a  rater's  failure  to  conduct  a  required  or  requested 
feedback session does not  by  itself  invalidate an EPR.  DPPPAB 
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.  DPPPAB  stated  that  a  review of  the  documents 
provided does not reveal a violation of regulatory provisions or 
indicate  an  injustice  occurred. 
A  complete  copy  of  this 
evaluation is appended at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and  indicated that 
it is not a question of providing more evidence as suggested, he 
feels there is enough hard evidence available in his application 
package to prove his case.  The letters and statements that were 
provided were made by individuals and supervisors in the unit and 
wing who benefited directly as a result of his outstanding work 
during  the period  covered by  the  contested report.  They would 
have provided  this testimony to the rater had  they been  asked. 
The rater acknowledged he  was with him  (applicant) only a very 
short  period  of  time, no  more  than  55  days  during  the  rating 
period.  His reporting official was notified  in early December 
1993 that he was responsible to give him a feedback.  However, he 
never signed off on it until March  1994,  two months before the 
closeout  of  the  contested  EPR.  He  did  tell  the  rater  that 
feedback was due.  He is unable to provide additional information 
concerning the rater's travel vouchers to prove he was TDY.  He 
is  an  enlisted NCO  and, as a  result  of  the  privacy  act, that 
information  would  not  be  released  to  him. 
Furthermore,  the 
individual  is  no  longer  in  the  service  and  he  would  have  no 
contact with him.  He strongly feels that he  has  justified the 
removal  of  the  contested  report.  This  officer's unjustified, 
unverified report has caused and will continue to have an adverse 
effect  on  his  career  and  chances  for  early  promotions.  A 
complete copy of this response is 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.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented' to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice. 
Evaluators are required to assess a ratee's performance, honestly 
and to the best of their ability, based on their observance of an 
individual's performance.  We  have noted the documents provided 
with the applicant's submission.  However, they do not, in our 
opinion,  support a  finding  that  the  evaluators were  unable  to 

3 '  

97-03510 

render  unbiased  evaluations  of  the  applicant's performance  or 
that  the ratings on the contested report were  based  on factors 
other  than  applicant's duty  performance  during  the  contested 
rating period.  There  is no indication in the record before us 
that  the  rater  did  not  have  reasonable  information  available 
concerning  the  applicant's  performance  during  the  contested 
rating period on which to base a reasonably accurate assessment. 
As  to  the  days  of supervision, insufficient  evidence has  been 
presented  to  substantiate the  applicant's contention  that  the 
rater did  not  have  the  required  120 days of  supervision.  The 
applicant  further  alleges  that  the  contested  report  is 
inconsistent when compared to his other EPRs.  The fact that the 
applicant  received  more  favorable  ratings  both  prior  and 
subsequent  to  the  period  under  review,  alone,  does  not 
substantiate  a  finding  that  the  report  is  inaccurate. 
Additionally, we found no evidence that the contested report was 
prepared contrary to the governing regulation nor did we find the 
rater's failure to conduct feedback sessions to be a sufficient 
basis to invalidate the report.  In view of the foregoing, and in 
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we are in agreement with 
the opinion of  the respective Air Force office  (HQ AFPC/DPPPAB) 
and find no basis on which to favorably consider this appeal. 
4 .   The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been  shown  that  a  personal  appearance with  or without  counsel 
will  materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

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  9 July  1998, under  the provisions of  AFI 
36-2603: 

Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member 
Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

4 '  

97- ,03510 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Nov  97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 3 Dec 97. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 7 Jan 98. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Jan 98. 
Exhibit  F.  Letter from applicant, dated 16 Feb 98. 

. .  

THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ 
Panel Chair 

5 

97-03510 

.  - . . . 

._ 

DEPARTMENT O F  THE A I R   FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS  AIR  FORCE  P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R  

RANDOLPH  A I R   FORCE 3 A S E  T E X A S  

MEMORANDUM FOR AFPCDPPPAB 

AFBCMR 
XNTURN 

FROM:  HQ AFPC/DPPPWB 

550 C Street West, Ste 09 
Randolph AFB TX 78150-471 1 

SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Records 

Requested Action.  The applicant is requesting the AFBCMR va 

Perfomance Report (EPR) closing 15 May 94.  We will address the supplemental promotion 
issue should the request be approved. 

i Enlisted 

Reason for Request.  The applicant states the contested EPR was not an accurate account 

of his performance during the reporting period. 

- Facts.  See Hq AFPCIDPPPAB Memorandum. 
Discussion.  The first time the contested report was considered ia. the promotion process 
was cycle 95E7 to MSgt (promotions effective Aug 95 - Jul96).  Should the AFBCMR void the 
contested report as requested, and providing the applicant is otherwise eligible, he would 
normally be entitied to supplemental consideration beginning with cycle 95B7. He will not be a 
selectee for the 95E7,96E7, or 97B7 cycles and it would serve no useful purpose to provide him 
supplemental consideration for these cycles.  Promotion selections for the next cycle, 98E7, will 
be done in May 98. 

Recommendation.  We defer to the recommendation of Hq AFPCDPPPAB. 

Chief Inquiries/AFBCMR Section 
Airman Promotion Branch 

DEPARTMENT O F  THE  A I R   FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLP'H AIR  FORCE BASE TEXAS 

MfMORANDUM FOR qFBCMR 
FROM.  HQ AFPC/DPPPAB 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX 781504710 
SUBJECT: AFI: 36-2603 Application- 

Beauested Action. Applicant requests the enlisted performance report (IEPR) that closed 

out on IS May 94 be removed fiom his records. 

.  Basis for Request.  Applicant contends the contested report is an inaccurate account of his 
performance during the reporting period because the rater did not gather input from other sources 
pertaining to the applicant's duty performance; the rater did not deduct the time he was assigued 
temporary duty (TDY) fiom the reporting period; the indorser from the contested report did not 
have sufficient knowledge of his duty performance to properly evaluate it; his rater did not 
conduct an initial feedback session during the reporting period; and the report is inconsistent 
when compared to his other EPRs. 

Eecommendation.  Deny. 

-g 

mment  . 

v 

a.  Applicatiodis timely.  The application is timely. The applicant submitted two 
similar requests under MI-36-2401 Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which 
were denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAJ3).  A copy of the letters announcing 
the W ' s  decisions, dated 25 May 95 and 27 May 97, are included in the applicant's  appeal: 
package. 

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

directive. 

c,  In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a personal brief; copy of a 
decoration printout extracted from personnel data system (PDS); copies of his EPRs, and 
decorations; a copy of a performance feedback worksheet (PFW), copy of his ERAB packages; 
memorandum fiom the rater from the contested report; statements from outside the rating chain 
of the contested report, and extraneous material. 

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 alI the 
evaluators on the contested report-not only for support, but for clarificatiordexplanation. The 
applicant has provided a memorandum fkom the rater of the contested report.  However, he does 
not substantiate the report was inaccurate, nor that he made an error when he evaluated the 
applicant’s performance.  He does not include any substantial jnformation from the indorser of the 
report.  The statements fiom outside the rating chain are not germane to this m e .  While the 
individuals are entitled to their opinions of the applicant, we are provided no reason to believe 
they were in a better position to assess the applicant’s duty performance during the contested 
rating period than those specifically charged with his evaluation.  In the absence of information 
fiom the evaluators, official substantiation of error or injustice fkom the Inspector General (IG) or 
Social Actions is appropriate, but not provided in this case. It appears the contested report w a s  
accomplished in direct accordance with Air Force policy in effect at the time it was rendered. 

f The applicant claims the rater did not deduct the days he was assigned 

Temporary Duty (TDY) from the total number of days supenision covered during this reporting 
period and therefore, did not have the necessary 120 days supervision required to write an 
evaluation. However, the applicant fsded to provide the documentation necessary to validate his 
contention.  As stated in the ERAB’s decision memorandum, dated 27 May 97, “The safety 
schedules are not official documents to confirm the absence of the rater.  Copies of completed 
travel vouchers or other official documents fiom the Financial Services Office (FSO)  are required 
to confirm the periods of absence.  Further, only periods of absence in excess of 30 consecutive 
days are deducted from the period of supervision.”  The letter from the applicant’s rater does not 
substantiate his claim concerning the TDY issue.  H e  merely states, ‘There were approximately 55 
days, according to his (the applicant’s) calculations, during the period of evaluation he and I were 
physically in the office together.”  Apparently, the rater did not recalculate the days of 
supervision, nor was he personally willing to provide copies of travel vouchers to the applicant in 
order to corroborate his contention the number of days supervision was wrong.  The applicant 
firther asserts he was also TDY during the reporting period.  Had the applicant been assigned 
elsewhere for a sufficient time period, a Letter of Evaluation would have been Written to evaluate 
the applicant’s performance, and then maintained in a suspense file in the unit Commander’s 
Support Staf€(CSS) office for his rater’s review and use in creating the EPR. We, therefore, 
conclude the applicant fided to provide sufficient evidence to convince us the number of days 
supervision was erroneous. 

g. The applicant contends his rater did not obtain input from others before 
finalizing his EPR that closed out in May 94.  While Air Force policy does charge a rater to get 
meaningful information from the ratee and as many sources as possible, it is his ultimate 
responsibility to determine which accomplishments are included on the EPR and whether or not it 
is necessary for him to gather additional infomation from other sources in order to render an 
accurate assessment of the individual.  The rater obviously considered he had sufficient 
knowledge of the applicant’s performance and rendered a valid assessment of his performance. 
The fact the rater was unwilling to provide additional documentation regarding the contested EPR 
speaks volumes.  He obviously, with a clear conscience, rendered a report he considered to be 
accurate.  The applicant fails to realize or understand that, by virtue of human nature, an 
individual’s self-assessment of performance is often somewhat ‘‘glorified” compared to an 

evaluator’s perspective because it is based on perceptions of self.  His report is not inaccurate or 
unfair simply because he believes it is. 

h.  The applicant asserts the indorser fiom the contested report did not have first- 
hand knowledge of his duty performance and was, therefore, unable to render a proper evaluation 
of his duty performance.  The Air Force charges evaluators with rendering fair and accurate EPRs 
and ensuring the comments support the rritings.  The short length of time he was in the role before 
the close-out date is not an issue; Air Force policy allows evaluators other than the rater to be 
assigned at any point.  Subsequent evaluators are not required to have “first-hand knowledge’’ of 
they feel their knowledge is insufiicient, they may obtain information from other 
the ratee-if 
reliable sources. 

i.  The applicant alleges he was not rendered an initial performance feedback.  AFI 
36-2403, paragraph 2.8, states the ratee should “no%  the rater and, $necessary,  the rater’s rater 
when a required or requested feedback session does not take place.”  The applicant does not state 
whether he requested a feedback session fiom his rater, nor does he state he notified the rater or 
the rater’s rater when the required feedback session did not take place.  Regardless, AFI 36-2403, 
paragraph 2-10, states, “A rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session 
does not by itself invalidate an EPR.” 

j. The applicant contends the contested  EPR is inconsistent with previous 

performance.  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 dlow for changes in the ratee’s 
performance and does not follow the intent of the governing regulation, AFR 39-62.  The OPR 
was designed to provide a rating for a s p d c  period of time based on the performance noted 
during that period, not based on previous performance.  We must conclude the contested report 
had its desired effect on the individual, as his duty performance for the subsequent reporting 
period improved. 

k. In conclusion, a review of the documents provided does not reveal a violation 
of regulatory provisions or indicate an injustice has occurred.  It appears this appeal is simply an 
effort to remove an “undesirable” report.  We understand the applicant’s desire to have the EPR 
removed because of the promotion advantage. However, we strongly recommend applicant’s 
request be denied. 

Summary.  Based on the evidence provided, our recommendation of denial is appropriate. 

+*- 

6 

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