AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

JUN  3 0  

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03602 

COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

The  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR) rendered  for  the  period 
28 Nov 89 through 17 Sep 90 be declared void and removed from his 
records. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The contested report was written by  the wrong rater/supervisor; 
the indorser was not in his chain of command and should not have 
signed the report; and  the duty performance that was  stated in 
the report was also incorrect and not accomplished by him. 

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement 
and statements from the rater and indorser.  The rater states he 
was not the applicant's  supervisor and never had been.  He also 
states  he  had  insufficient  knowledge  to  render  an  accurate 
evaluation of  the applicant's performance and was  told to write 
the  report because  it was  late.  The  indorser  states that  the 
information contained in the contested report is inaccurate and 
does not  reflect  the  duty performance  of  the  applicant  during 
that time frame. 

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air  Force in 
the grade of technical sergeant. 

The applicant submitted three similar requests under AFI 36-2401, 
Correcting Officer  and  Enlisted  Evaluation  Reports, which  were 
denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board  (ERAB). 

APR/EPR profile since 1989 reflects the following: 

PERIOD ENDING 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

97-03602 

2 8   Nov 8 9  
* 1 7   Sep 9 0  
1 7   Sep 9 1  
23  Aug 9 2  
3 1  Jul 93 
2 9   Apr 9 4  
3  Apr 95 
3  Apr 9 6  
5  Oct 9 6  
5  Oct 9 7  

*  Contested report. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

9 
4  (New System) 
4 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 

The  Chief,  BCMR  and  SSB  Section, AFPC/DPPPAB,  reviewed  this 
application  and  states  that  in  reference  to  the  rater  now 
claiming  he  was  not  the  applicant's  supervisor  and  never  had 
been, and also that he  had  insufficient knowledge to render an 
accurate  evaluation of  the  applicant's  performance, they note, 
the  report was  signed  by  the  rater  on  the  closeout  date,  and 
there is no mention the dates in Sections V or VI of the report 
are erroneous.  They state that it is apparent the report was not 
late.  They point out, EPRs receive exhaustive reviews prior to 
the becoming a matter of record.  In reference to the applicant 
asserting  the  indorser  from  the  contested  report  did  not  have 
first-hand knowledge of his duty performance and was not in his 
rating  chain.  They  state, 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  the 
ratee-if  they  feel  their  knowledge  is  insufficient,  they  may 
obtain  information  from  other  reliable  sources.  They  state, 
although  the  applicant  provided  a  statement  from  the  indorser 
from  the  contested  report,  it  does  not  substantiate  the 
applicant's  contention  he  should  not  have  been  the  indorser. 
Rather, the indorser claims the information on the report did not 
accurately  reflect  the  applicant's  duty performance  during  the 
reporting period in question.  They state that it is not uncommon 
for  an  evaluator's  assessment of  an  individual to  mellow  over 
time  or  for them  to  soften their position  on  an  issue because 
memories fade as time passes.  They, therefore, are not convinced 
the  indorser who  signed  the  report was  not  in the  applicant's 
rating chain, or he had  insufficient knowledge to render a fair 
and accurate appraisal of  the applicant, especially considering 
the  review  levels  an  EPR  must  go  through before  it  becomes  a 
matter of  record.  In this case, the applicant did not provide 
any  evidence  from  the  applicant's  former commander, or alleged 

2 

97-03602 

correct indorser from the contested report,  to substantiate his 
contention the report was rendered by the wrong individuals. 

They  further  state,  it  appears  the  contested  report  was 
accomplished in direct accordance with Air Force policy in effect 
at  the  time  it  was  rendered.  Furthermore, Air  Force  policy 
charges a rater to get meaningful information from the ratee and 
as many sources as possible.  However, it is the rater's ultimate 
responsibility to determine which accomplishments are included on 
the EPR and whether or not it is necessary to gather additional 
information  from  other  sources  in order  to  render  an  accurate 
assessment of the individual.  In that regard, they point out an 
evaluation report  is not  erroneous or unjust  solely because  it 
may have contributed to nonselection for promotion or because it 
may  impact future promotion or career opportunities.  They find 
no  specific  evidence  that  the  contested  report  is  flawed  or 
unjust.  His report is not inaccurate or unfair simply because he 
believes  it is.  It appears this appeal is simply an effort to 
remove an undesirable report.  Therefore, based on the evidence 
provided, they recommend denial of applicant's request. 

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

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, also reviewed 
this  application  and  states  that  should  the  Board  void  the 
contested report in its entirety, upgrade the overall rating, or 
make  any  other  significant  change, providing  the  applicant  is 
otherwise  eligible,  the  applicant  will  be  entitled  to 
supplemental promotion consideration commencing with cycle 9537. 

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

~~ 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Copies of  the Air Force evaluations were  forwarded to applicant 
on 27 Jan 98 for review and response within 30 days.  As of this 
date, no response has been received by this office. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
laws or regulations. 

2.  The  application was  not  timely  filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate 
3 .  
the existence of probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the 
supporting documentation submitted by the applicant, we believe the 

3 

97-03602 

contested  report  is  not  an  accurate  assessment  of  applicant s 
performance  during  the  period  in  question.  In this  respect, we 
note the statement submitted from the rater, indicating that he was 
not the applicant’s supervisor and never had been.  He also stated 
that he had insufficient knowledge to render an accurate evaluation 
of  the  applicant’s performance  and  was  told  to  write  the  report 
because it was late.  Furthermore, the statement submitted from the 
indorser  stated  that  the  information  contained  in  the  contested 
report is inaccurate and does not reflect the duty performance of 
the  applicant.  In view  of  the  foregoing, and  in  an  effort  to 
offset  any possibility of  an  injustice, we  believe  the  contested 
EPR  should  be  declared  void  and  removed  from  his  records.  In 
addition,  we  recommend  he  be  provided  supplemental  promotion 
consideration for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 9537. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
The pertinent military records of  the Department of the Air Force 
relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  the  Enlisted 
Performance  Report,  AF  Form  910,  rendered  for  the  period 
28 November  1989  through  17 September 1990, be  declared void  and 
removed from his records. 

It is further recommended that applicant be  provided  supplemental 
consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for all 
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 9537. 

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  14  May  1998, under  the  provisions  of  AFI 
36-2603: 

Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair 
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member 
Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member 

4 

.

, 

 . . . . .  

.
.
. . ,  , ,, . > :  
'. ,.,  ' 
..  t .  

.

_

.
.
.
.
. .  

.

.
.

 
 
.;.* 
. 
.
 

.

 

.

 

.
.

.

.

.
 

.

  . 
 

.

..  ... . 
.._ ,  . .

' 

.

:... 
 

..  ,  . 

1

... . 

.

.

  .. 
:. 

L 

.  :_ ... 

.

' 

,  ._ .' 

. 
.
.' 

.

  . .  ;.. 
. . .  , 

.

.  : ,.' I 
...  . 

.. .-.  *. 
9743602: 

 

f

.

 

Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote) 

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

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Nov 97. 
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPAE3, dated 13 Jan 98. 
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 12 Dec 97. 
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Jan 98. 

- .  

.

-

 

LLLL47Ax 
CKARLENE M. B 
Panel Chair 

U 

5 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 97-03602 

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: 

1990, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records. 

e Department of the Air Force relating to 
corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance 
riod 28 November 1989 through 17 September 

It is further directed that applicant be provided supplemental consideration for 

promotion to the grade of master sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 
9537. 

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. 

/ Director 

Air Force Review Boards Agency